PRIVATE BUSINESS

Leicester City Council Bill
	 — 
	Liverpool City Council Bill
	 — 
	Maidstone Borough Council Bill
	 — 
	Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Radiographers

David Jones: How many radiographers there are in the NHS in England.

Patricia Hewitt: At September 2004, nearly 14,000 radiographers were working in the NHS in England, an increase of more than 2,000 or 18 per cent. since 1997.

David Jones: The Secretary of State will be aware that an article in the British Medical Journal of 14 January reported that many radiotherapy departments are overstretched and understaffed, which was having a substantial effect on patients' survival. The article reported that
	"Longer radiotherapy waiting times were associated with diminished survival outcomes for patients. Patients were waiting for, on average, 94 days between first hospital visit and starting treatment",
	and during that time,
	"21 per cent. became unfit for radical radiotherapy."

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat? Supplementary questions should be brief. Yesterday, there were several points of order from Back Benchers complaining that they were not called, so a supplementary question must be brief. We will leave the hon. Gentleman and allow the Minister to reply. Of course, the Secretary of State and other Ministers must abide by this ruling as well.

Patricia Hewitt: I am delighted to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman that the vacancy rate for diagnostic radiography has fallen. It was just below 3.5 per cent. in 2005, and although it is higher for therapeutic radiography, that, too, has fallen significantly in recent years. That, in part, is because we have doubled the number of students entering radiography courses, as well as increasing the number of radiographers in employment.

Jonathan R Shaw: Would my right hon. Friend like to take a trip to Medway Maritime hospital—

David Taylor: Certainly not.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend would, if he wanted an MRI scan, because urgent MRI scans are completed within two weeks and non-urgent ones within 12 weeks. That has been achieved by a flexible working pattern—a six-day working pattern, with a 12-hour day. Is that not the future for the NHS?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I am delighted to have the opportunity to congratulate staff at Medway Maritime hospital, who have slashed the waiting time for urgent and for routine MRI scans. They have taken advantage of the work force reforms that we introduced with "Agenda for Change" and the new roles, particularly for assistant radiographers and advanced practitioners. Unlike the Opposition, we do not simply talk about waiting times—we take action to cut them.

John Baron: The figures quoted by the Secretary of State sound good, but the real issue is the skills shortage among senior radiographers, partly because targets have hindered specialist training, and, according to the Royal College of Radiologists, the significantly longer waiting times since 1998 that cancer patients have had to endure. We have raised the issue in the past. The Government said they would look into the problem, but little has been done. In order to move the discussion on, will the Secretary of State tell us how the Government can provide the right solution to this growing problem if they cannot quantify the problem, because they continually refuse to measure radiotherapy waiting times?

Patricia Hewitt: As part of our commitment to reduce to a maximum of 18 weeks the total wait from GP referral right through to treatment, we will start this year to measure the hitherto hidden waiting times, including those for MRI and other scans. Far from refusing to accept that there is a problem, we have been taking action to deal with it. We have set earlier targets to speed up treatment as well as diagnosis for cancer patients, so we are already seeing the waiting times for cancer patients falling dramatically. I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

Rob Marris: My late father was a consultant radiologist in Wolverhampton—a seat that I now represent, of course—for many years. I am therefore aware of the vast changes that have taken place in radiography. The number of radiographers that we need has grown considerably given the skills that they are now expected to exercise. Is my right hon. Friend sure that we have enough training places? When I took this up with the Government four years ago, we clearly did not.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the situation that pertained four years ago. We have doubled—in the case of diagnostic radiographers, more than doubled—the number of students taking training. Three new radiology academies were opened in 2005. We are increasing training capacity without affecting patient care.

HIV/AIDS

Nigel Evans: How many cases of HIV/AIDS there were in England and Wales in the latest period for which figures are available.

Caroline Flint: There were 5,171 new diagnoses of HIV in England and Wales for 2005 reported by the end of December 2005.

Nigel Evans: Those are disturbing figures. In 1987, as the Minister will know, there were 2,500 cases; now, she has given a figure of 5,500, and it will probably be nearer to 7,000 by the time the statistics come in. Almost 500 people died of AIDS last year. The Secretary of State said that she believes in action, so let us have some action. When are we going to see the advertising campaign that was promised last year? Will the Minister guarantee that we will focus on ensuring that young people learn about how HIV is transmitted and how they can protect themselves against it?

Caroline Flint: One of the reasons the results are as I explained is that we have better reporting mechanisms for HIV. Having said that, we should not be complacent about the figures. We fund organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust to target, in particular, the gay community and the African community, where the prevalence of HIV is due partly to HIV acquired overseas. That is why the work that we do through the Department for International Development is so important. I am delighted that last week it was announced that sexual health is now one of six service priorities for the NHS, with a 48-hour target for access to genito-urinary medicine clinics. That goes alongside the £300 million of investment that we have put into this area. There is an important need to deliver, based on the White Paper—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Brian Iddon: When we arrest people and test them for drugs through the judicial process, why do we not at the same time offer them tests for blood-borne diseases—not only HIV, but hepatitis C and B?

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I am happy to discuss those issues with my colleagues in the Home Office. In relation to prison health, the changed arrangements mean that the services provided to those in custody as regards transmitted infections and drug use should improve over the next few years.

Anne Main: In my constituency and across Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, HIV and the diagnosis of AIDS has gone up by 1,500 per cent., yet there is now only one county sexual health promotion adviser, and his job is on the line. Our GUM clinic has had cuts. How can the Government say that sexual health is a priority when we are seeing massive increases in HIV and AIDS among the heterosexual population and massive cuts in GUM clinics and sexual health promotion?

Caroline Flint: I did not hear the period to which the hon. Lady was referring in relation to the increases that she mentioned. Part of our task is to facilitate the ability of people who may have acquired a sexually-transmitted infection, and within that, HIV, to come forward. That is partly why we introduced testing among pregnant women. Some 92 per cent. of HIV-infected women are diagnosed before delivery. In the past year, take-up of voluntary confidential testing has gone up from 54 per cent. to 75 per cent. We have to do more. However, I welcome the importance given to this within the NHS priorities. We must, on the basis of the White Paper, consider how better we can deliver sexual health services. Part of my job is to see how we can redesign services that are fit for purpose in dealing with this important area.

Phyllis Starkey: The Minister will be aware that individuals who are already suffering from another sexually transmitted disease are more susceptible to HIV infection if they are exposed to the virus. How soon does she think that all primary care trusts will be able to deliver the target of people having access to a GUM clinic within 48 hours?

Caroline Flint: The target is set for 2008 and we are heading for that. I am pleased to say that some primary care trusts are already making huge progress. Part of our job in the next couple of years is to identify best practice to ensure that it can be spread more quickly.
	It is important that those issues are addressed for many reasons. For example, we shall roll out a national screening programme for chlamydia, and that is especially important not only in tackling a sexually transmitted infection but in halting the number of women who find that they have infertility problems 10 years down the road.

Lynne Featherstone: Does the Under-Secretary know that the new charging system that was introduced in 2004 deters the prescribing of antiretroviral drugs for HIV-positive pregnant women, especially those who come to the United Kingdom without documentation, or have been refused asylum or leave to remain? What will she do about it?

Caroline Flint: It is important to recognise that the national health service is for those who are eligible for it. It would send the wrong message if we said that people who were not entitled to that service should take advantage of it. Having said that, there are several categories, including asylum seekers, for whom access to HIV treatment and services is and will continue to be available. The problems do not apply only to HIV treatment but to other matters, which we must tackle sensitively but appropriately given NHS resources.

Southport Hospital

David Borrow: If she will ensure that the residents of Tarleton, Hesketh Bank, Banks and Rufford continue to have access to 24-hour accident and emergency services at Southport hospital.

Patricia Hewitt: There are no plans to alter the opening times or range of services provided at Southport and Formby district hospital.

David Borrow: I share with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) genuine concern about Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority's proposals to merge Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust with other hospital trusts in Liverpool. Our fear is that the plans will lead to specialist services moving from Southport, thus undermining 24-hour accident and emergency services at the hospital. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that such changes will not be allowed to happen and that they have no reason to fear any running down of accident and emergency services at Southport?

Patricia Hewitt: As my hon. Friend knows, Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority has recently helped us pilot a new programme to improve financial management in the NHS and to ascertain whether potential applicants are ready to apply for foundation hospital status. In that context, the health authority has been examining structures throughout the local health community. I am assured that there are no firm proposals to merge any NHS trusts in that SHA. I am sure that the authority will listen carefully to my hon. Friend's comments on the subject. If—if—any merger between different hospitals were proposed, it would not only be subject to full local consultation but require ministerial approval. There are currently no such firm proposals.

John Pugh: Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust has a deficit of £15 million. A contributing factor is a suite of new buildings that gives the trust a capital asset base that is greater than its annual income. Why should services in my constituency suffer because we are blessed with new buildings? Will the Secretary of State examine the matter further and explain how hospitals such as Southport and Ormskirk can thrive under a system of payment by results?

Patricia Hewitt: When we invest in new hospital buildings, they must be paid for, reflecting the fact that they give patients a far better service and staff a much better working environment. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the financial difficulties at Southport hospital, which predicted a deficit of some £15 million in the middle of last year. That is unacceptable and I am sure that he and my hon. Friends would join me in urging clinicians and other front-line staff and management to work closely together to tackle any waste and inefficiency and ensure that that hospital, like the majority of others in the NHS, not only continues to deliver better services for patients but does that within its substantially increased budget.

Rosie Cooper: I thank my right hon. Friend for her assurances, which I accept, about Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust. However, I must put on record the fact that most hon. Members have serious doubts about the SHA's designs and plans.
	Further to the move of accident and emergency services to Southport and Ormskirk and the assurances that we have been given, will my right hon. Friend encourage the trust to advertise more widely the facilities that are available at the minor injuries unit at Ormskirk to increase its use? I should also like to—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Patricia Hewitt: I am sure that the minor injuries unit is providing an excellent service and that it should be used even more widely. I am also sure, however, that the strategic health authority will take on board the very real reservations that my hon. Friends have expressed about any proposal that might be made for a merger. I would add the observation that, although some mergers of hospitals in the NHS have worked extremely well, not all have done so, any more than mergers do in the private sector. Those lessons need to be borne in mind by any authority that might be contemplating mergers.

Royal Shrewsbury Hospital

Daniel Kawczynski: If she will visit Royal Shrewsbury hospital to meet nurses and doctors to discuss staff morale.

Rosie Winterton: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman had me in mind when he issued that invitation, but, yes, as regional Minister, I would be very happy to visit his hospital.

Daniel Kawczynski: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for agreeing to visit Royal Shrewsbury hospital. A lot of doctors and nurses have come to my surgery recently, and they are extremely concerned about staff morale and about cuts at the hospital. I have shown them the article by the Secretary of State in The Times, in which she stated that the NHS was back in business. To a man and to a woman, they burst out laughing, so amazed were they at how detached from the reality on the ground the Government were. I am therefore very grateful to the Minister for coming to see for herself the extent of the problems that Royal Shrewsbury hospital is facing.

Rosie Winterton: I can imagine that there would be more doctors and nurses coming to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, because there are now 2,092 more nurses, 643 more doctors and 221 more consultants in his SHA. I am aware, however, of the issues that were raised in the Adjournment debate last week about some of the financial problems that the area is facing. As I said in that debate, one of the new turnaround directors has gone into the area, and I hope that he or she will be able to work with the new chief executive, who I know is very highly regarded by hon. Members. I hope that that will make a difference to some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

David Wright: I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend will visit Shropshire. Will she call in, on her way up the M54, to visit us in Telford to talk about acute hospital and primary care services? We have an excellent new chief executive covering the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital sites, and he has given his commitment to retaining quality acute services and to working with the primary care trusts to ensure that we have excellent primary care services, in line with the Government's announcements yesterday.

Rosie Winterton: Yes, I would be more than happy to call in at my hon. Friend's constituency as well. The contribution that he made to last week's Adjournment debate reflected the concerns of his constituents and the many achievements of the NHS locally. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the new chief executive in the area, and has praised the action that he is taking to improve services locally.

Mark Pritchard: I am delighted that the Minister has agreed to visit the Princess Royal hospital in my constituency, and I would be delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) as well. Will the Minister improve staff morale at the hospital by stating categorically that the accident and emergency ward will not be downgraded from a consultant-led ward to a nurse-led ward?

Rosie Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman knows from our debate last week, the new chief executive has said that he would like to see A and E departments at both hospitals. He also knows, however, that these matters will be going out to consultation towards the end of February. There will be a 12-week consultation period in which to consider the improvements that need to be made to services and to address some of the financial difficulties in the region.

Stephen O'Brien: I hope that the Minister might carry on up the A41 and come to Chester as well. Given yesterday's U-turn by the Secretary of State, whereby community hospitals will not now be scrapped, the current running loss of £25 million—and, in addition, the historic accumulated deficit of £36 million in Shropshire's NHS trusts, the bulk of which comes from the Shrewsbury and Telford acute trust—and the Government's edict that Shropshire trusts must be in balance within three years under the new turnaround director, will the Minister say how on earth that can be achieved without cuts in front-line NHS services to patients?

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Finnamore report has put out a number of options for pre-consultation—not only to consider improving services in the area, but to address the financial position. That will be looked at further, particularly in conjunction with the new team that has gone in to assist the chief executive, and will then go out to full public consultation for three months. He knows very well that that is the most appropriate way forward in the circumstances so that local people can make the decisions, reflecting their priorities locally, subject to full consultation.

NHS Dentistry

Andrew Robathan: What recent representations she has received about NHS dentistry in Leicestershire.

Rosie Winterton: Leicester city council wrote to the Secretary of State regarding information for the public about dentistry changes. Right hon. and hon. Members have asked questions and written letters to me about NHS dentistry in Leicestershire.

Andrew Robathan: Will the Minister take this as another representation on behalf of me and 50 per cent. of my constituents, who cannot get an NHS dentist? Is she aware that the British Dental Association believes that 60 per cent. of NHS dentists will reduce their NHS work under the new contract? How does that square with the Prime Minister's pledge that everyone would have access to an NHS dentist by 2001? Does the Minister imagine that we will get there before this discredited Government are thrown out of office?

Rosie Winterton: I would hope that dentists will not reduce their commitment to the NHS, particularly as an NHS dentist can be paid about £80,000 a year for a reasonable commitment to the NHS. On top of that, I told the House previously that there would be £60,000 towards their business expenses, but I was wrong. The figure is about £80,000. That is guaranteed for three years for 5 per cent. less work. I do not think that that is a bad deal for NHS dentists, and I hope that Members representing Leicestershire will encourage their dentists to sign up and stay with the NHS.

Peter Soulsby: While commenting on NHS dentistry provision in Leicestershire, will the Minister join me in praising the excellent work done by the NHS dental access centre, which is based in the city of Leicester but provides services across the whole of Leicestershire? Those services go to many thousands of people who, until the centre was provided by the Government, did not have access to NHS dentistry. In praising its work, will she also make a commitment to providing it with the necessary resources to meet the considerable demand for its very welcome services?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to praise the work of dental access centres, which have considerably improved access for patients, particularly those requiring emergency treatment. The point about the changes we are making in NHS dentistry is that the money that was previously handled nationally will remain at local level, particularly if NHS dentists choose to leave the NHS. It will then be up to local PCTs to use that money to commission dentistry from elsewhere. That also takes into account the fact that they have been supporting and will continue to support dental access centres.

Stephen Dorrell: Does the Minister agree that the central purpose for which the NHS was established was to secure equitable access for those who need health care? Measured against that text, is it not true in Leicestershire, as it is all over the rest of the country, that access to NHS dentistry has gone backwards over the last eight years? The words she uses are familiar to me; I read them out from that Dispatch Box 10 years ago. When will the Government do something about improving access to NHS dentistry, rather than allow the position to continue to go backwards?

Rosie Winterton: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was reading out exactly the same words from the Dispatch Box, considering that he closed two dental schools and last week we announced that we are opening them. We are training another 170 dentists and investing more in NHS dentistry. I am not denying that there have been and continue to be problems. In his area, however, one of the PCTs has seen registrations increase by 13 per cent. over the past year, and there has been nearly £500,000 of additional investment in personal dental services. We are reforming radically the way in which NHS dentistry is delivered in this country. Under his Administration, if a dentist left the NHS, the money reverted to central Government. Under our system, the money stays at local level so that PCTs can increase access, making sure that those who want to work in the NHS do so and are properly rewarded.

Andy Reed: My hon. Friend knows that I have raised concerns in relation to Charnwood and North West Leicestershire PCT in the past. Is she aware, however, of a campaign that seems to be scaring many of my constituents? On Friday, I received a letter from the PCT, which it has had to write to me and other Members of Parliament for the area, in which it claims that such campaigns are causing unjustifiable alarm to many patients and should not be allowed. Does she agree that although there are problems, it is much better to have a rational debate than to make wild claims on both sides? The real problems need to be addressed to make sure that PCTs are in a position to provide services if dentists remove themselves from the NHS.

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The chief executives of virtually all PCTs in the area wrote to the local dental committee pointing out that the posters being displayed in surgeries could result in patients unnecessarily taking up offers of private dentistry. They have requested that the local dental committee does not encourage dental practices to display those posters, and have been very clear that the offer made to dentists is reasonable. If dentists do not want to take it up, however, they will commission services either from other NHS dentists in the area or from about 1,000 new dentists coming through not only our international recruitment exercise but qualifying examinations taken via the international route. If NHS dentists choose to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must appeal for shorter replies.

Steve Webb: In Leicestershire, roughly one child in three is not registered with an NHS dentist. Of the remainder, many are at dentists who will not take adults on the NHS but continue to accept children. When the Government ban that mixture, what will happen to those children?

Rosie Winterton: Let us be clear. The reason we have made this change is that many Members complained that dentists were saying, "We will take your children if you register privately." That was wrong and disgraceful, and that is what we have changed. That does not prevent PCTs saying to individual dental practices that if they want to take children only on the NHS, if the PCT agrees, they can do so. That was the difficulty that we were facing. Practices will still be allowed to take children only on the NHS if the PCT agrees.

David Taylor: The Minister mentioned the international recruitment initiative, and some dentists have come from some of the least well-off countries in the expanded EU. Will she say a little about the protocols and codes of practice in place to ensure that we do not bridge gaps here at the expense of creating cavities there?

Rosie Winterton: We are always keen to ensure that our international recruitment programmes have the agreement of other Governments. When I visited Poland, where we have recruited some 250 dentists, I met representatives of the Polish Government and dental executive groups. They agreed that there was no problem with dentists coming to this country, and that it was not causing a shortage in their country. The same applies to the international qualifying examinations. As I have said, about 1,000 dentists will qualify over the next few months.

Andrew Murrison: Does the Minister recollect the picture of 1,000 people queuing for a dentist that appeared last summer on the front page of the Leicester Mercury? She will know that local dental committees believe queues will lengthen as a result of the new contract, that units of dental activity underpinning it have been miscalculated, and that her failure to pilot courts disaster. Is it not the case that, tragically, the Leicester Mercury photographer will need an even wider-angled lens for his next picture of queues in Leicestershire than the one he employed in the summer?

Rosie Winterton: In fact, we have spent about five years piloting the new ways of working. That is why we know that dentists like it. It would be interesting to hear which parts of the policy the hon. Gentleman would change. Would he change an offer to dentists of approximately £80,000 a year plus £80,000 towards their business expenses? Would he ask us not to guarantee it for three years? Would he say that we do not need 5 per cent. less activity for that purpose? Would he not have opened a new dental surgery—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Bellingham.

Usage Charges

Henry Bellingham: What recent representations she has received from NHS health trusts in Norfolk regarding the imposition of usage charges.

Jane Kennedy: I am unaware of any centrally recorded correspondence received from NHS health trusts in Norfolk regarding the imposition of usage charges.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister will be aware that Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS trust is currently £11 million in deficit, with ward closures and other cuts. Will it be possible for that historic debt to be wiped out through payment by results? Also, can the Minister confirm that if a trust borrows money from her Department it will have to pay a usage charge of 10 per cent., amounting to £1.1 million a year? Surely it is perverse and shortsighted to charge trusts penal interest rates; it will simply make difficult problems much worse.

Jane Kennedy: Usage charges were fully understood, supported and accepted by all parties when we realised the concept of the NHS bank.
	Instead of standing on the sidelines wringing its hands over its deficit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS trust has got to grips with it. It deserves congratulations and support for its efforts. It has hit its waiting-list target three months early, notwithstanding the deficit; it has taken steps to deal with the fact that non-elective stays in the hospital were one and a half to two days longer than those in other hospitals in the area; and it has taken really good steps to reduce by £2 million the cost of initiatives such as better bed management. All that is to the benefit of local patients.
	Deficits are not a matter for standing on the sidelines and wringing one's hands. Local trusts and the health service must get to grips with the problem and manage it—as the hon. Gentleman's local hospital has done—in a way that delivers better services to local patients.

Bob Blizzard: Virtually all my constituents use James Paget Healthcare NHS trust in Norfolk, and, indeed, Norfolk Mental Health Care NHS trust. Neither of those trusts has complained to me about the matter raised by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). However, because in terms of the NHS we look in the Norfolk direction, the natural and obvious new configuration for primary care trusts is a merger between Waveney and Great Yarmouth PCTs. That is overwhelmingly supported by every strand of clinical and community local opinion. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that at the end of the consultation, the Secretary of State listens to that opinion and not to the strategic health authority?

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend has made a good point. The consultation is under way, and we will listen carefully to what emerges from it.

Accident and Emergency Departments

Gordon Prentice: How many accident and emergency departments have been downgraded since 2004 to take planned admissions only.

Patricia Hewitt: According to reports from the NHS hospital trusts, there were 208 major accident and emergency departments in England at the end of 2004 and 206 at the end of September 2005.

Gordon Prentice: I hope that the blue light accident and emergency department at Burnley general, which serves my constituency, does not close. I know that there will shortly be a major public consultation, but what is the point of endless public consultations on these matters if we do not listen to what the public say?

Patricia Hewitt: As my hon. Friend indicated, the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust is engaged in pre-consultation discussions, looking at a range of options for improving services. Options will go out for public consultation, which I am told will begin in March 2006 at the earliest. All those public consultations are designed to listen to local people and as far as possible to build local agreement and consensus about the right way forward. Pending that consultation, I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the superb performance of the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, which has not only met but exceeded the 98 per cent. target for people being seen within four hours of arriving at A and E.

Richard Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that the measures in the White Paper that move consultants and services from secondary care to primary care tend to threaten A and E departments, and what will she do to minimise that threat?

Patricia Hewitt: I do not accept that the proposals in the White Paper are a threat to A and E departments. We have made enormous improvements to the performance of A and E departments. I remember, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, that not so long ago patients spent hours on end on trolleys in the corridors of A and E departments. That was absolutely unacceptable. We introduced the four-hour target. A lot of A and E consultants said that that could not be achieved, but now admit that it has been. It has been helped by the fact that 25 per cent. of all A and E patients are now seen in a walk-in centre or minor injuries unit, which is better not only for them but for the blue light cases who need to attend a major A and E department.

David Wilshire: A couple of years ago, the accident part of the A and E department at Ashford hospital, Middlesex in my constituency was axed. At the time, a local A and E consultant said that people would suffer and some would die. At midnight tonight, the emergency part is being axed as well, so more people will suffer and more of my constituents will die. Can the Secretary of State confirm that she is ashamed of the way in which her Government have treated my constituents?

Patricia Hewitt: I simply do not recognise any evidence for the allegations that the hon. Gentleman is making. There was indeed a reorganisation in 2003 at Ashford A and E, when blue light services were moved to St. Peter's and, from tomorrow, Ashford emergency department will become a walk-in centre. There will be a substantial increase in day case surgery at Ashford hospital. By separating day case surgery from emergency surgery, much better services will be provided for patients who need elective care because their operations will no longer be cancelled. Blue light services and A and E services will be concentrated at St. Peter's. Across the country we have seen a major improvement in the performance of A and E departments, helped by the creation and expansion of minor injury units and walk-in centres. I am sorry that he does not feel able to welcome that.

Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority

Helen Jones: If she will make a statement on possible mergers of acute trusts within the Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority.

Liam Byrne: Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority is developing proposals to let NHS trusts locally apply for foundation trust status by 2008. Part of that work is looking at whether current organisational structures are best placed to meet patients' needs.

Helen Jones: It is clear from documents that some of us have seen that the SHA is working on plans for mergers, including the merger of Warrington and Whiston hospitals. Will my hon. Friend tell the SHA that that is totally unacceptable for people in my constituency, who would face a 20-mile round trip to access some services? What people want is good services provided locally. Does he accept that, because of the SHA's actions, I, my constituents and many Labour Members have no confidence any more in what is an increasingly Stalinist and out of touch health authority?

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend knows that I take a close interest in Warrington hospital, not least because I was born there. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, there are no firm plans for merger proposals. However, once such plans are developed, some very simple tests will be applied to determine whether they will benefit patients living in all the communities being served, and whether they are in line with the White Paper published yesterday. Moreover, any plans will be subject to full public consultation. I know that my hon. Friend is meeting the SHA chief executive on Friday, and I hope that she will make the points that she raised earlier forcefully to him.

Paul Rowen: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the reconfigurations and mergers planned in Greater Manchester, but is he also aware of the press statement issued last week by the Best for Health team that stated that petitions were not worth the paper on which they were written? Is that the right response for a listening health service?

Liam Byrne: That was not an appropriate comment, given that the petition in question had 30,000 signatures. I want to put on record my thanks to those who made the effort to get involved in the campaign. The White Paper that we presented to the House yesterday contained a wide range of expectations about how local health organisations need to consult with the public in their area. We also set out a range of new ways in which local voices will be heard in the consultations. We fully expect the NHS in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to give full regard to the proposals in the future.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: May I refute the suggestion that the SHA is Stalinist? It is not nearly that competent. Will my hon. Friend look seriously at the suggested reorganisation of the heath trust used by my constituents? It would lumber us with enormous deficits yet deliver no improvement in services, and would lead to many very incompetent administrators receiving very large redundancy payments.

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend speaks with great wisdom, and I am sure that the local NHS will profit from her advice. I shall make sure that the attention of the local chief executive is drawn to her comments this afternoon.

Urology Patients (Bedfordshire)

Andrew Selous: Which four hospitals that urology patients from Leighton Buzzard and Linslade in need of surgery will be offered under Patient Choice.

Liam Byrne: Patients from Leighton Buzzard and Linslade referred by their GP for urology have a choice of seven providers; Bedford hospital, Buckinghamshire hospital, East and North Hertfordshire NHS trust, Hinchingbrooke health care, Luton and Dunstable hospital, Milton Keynes general hospital and Cambridge university hospitals NHS foundation trust.

Andrew Selous: That is all very well, but residents of Leighton Buzzard and Linslade who depend on public transport often have great difficulty in getting to Wycombe hospital, to where much elective surgery that used to be performed at Stoke Mandeville has been moved. The combined population of Leighton Buzzard and Linslade is greater than that of Liechtenstein, and the Deputy Prime Minister plans to double the number of houses in the area. Given the Government's change of heart in respect of community hospitals, can that area be an early recipient of one?

Liam Byrne: I confess that it is some time since I compared the population of parts of the hon. Gentleman's constituency with that of Liechtenstein. However, the White Paper published yesterday set out proposals for moving care much closer to where patients live. We are also making sure that his constituents have a choice of seven providers, and I know that five of them are within a 30-mile radius of his constituency. We will back the reforms with substantial investment; a total of £75 million will go into his PCT over the next two years. I am sure that that will be very welcome for his constituents.

Paul Goodman: A petition signed by 40,000 people in the High Wycombe area who oppose the destabilising changes to which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has just referred was taken to Downing street this morning. Given that, can the Minister say how many letters he has received from people in my area who support the changes?

Liam Byrne: I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman with the precise answer to that question, as I did not furnish myself with the information before I came to the House today. However, the Government will expect his PCT to pay full attention to the White Paper published yesterday and to ensure that any proposals that they make are in line with the plans that we set out.

Dementia

Paddy Tipping: If she will make a statement on the prescribing of drugs to Alzheimer patients experiencing dementia.

Jane Kennedy: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is consulting on draft guidance on the use of drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. The consultation ends on 13 February.

Paddy Tipping: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the early prescribing of Alzheimer's drugs can lead to savings in both community and residential care, and is she confident that the methodology that NICE uses adequately reflects the cost of that care?

Jane Kennedy: NICE has taken account of the costs of full-time care in its current draft guidance on drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. It has looked at a range of costs, as opposed to a single figure that critics had previously claimed was too low. I stress that the consultation is still underway and NICE will listen to all the representations that it receives.

Jeremy Wright: The Minister will know that her Department has asked some very perceptive questions along the lines of the remarks by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). What are the Government doing to ensure that NICE gives satisfactory responses to those questions?

Jane Kennedy: NICE has given satisfactory responses and is consulting on its proposed guidance to the health service. We trust NICE to carry forward its assessments and appraisals in a manner that is internationally respected. Indeed, only yesterday the South African Department of Health requested that all of the clinical guidance that NICE provides for our health service be sent to it so that the guidance can be used in South Africa to provide the services that the national institute recommends.

Liz Blackman: Professionals working in mental health for the elderly tell me that patients who score just above the moderate range for receiving drugs according to NICE's recommendations present very differently, with some needing significant support. Will my right hon. Friend consider that further, so that when firm recommendations are made we can be sure that the drugs will be targeted at all those who can benefit?

Jane Kennedy: I am aware of a range of academic views on the benefits of QALYS in reaching an assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness. I acknowledge that there is no perfect methodology, but we need to recognise that NICE is an international leader in its field and it is generally agreed that it produces guidance of the highest quality. I reiterate that we trust NICE to reach a judgment on this issue in the light of available evidence, which includes any evidence on those patients who will benefit the most.

Doug Naysmith: My right hon. Friend is obviously aware, as we have just heard, that there is still some concern about the use of acetylcholine inhibitors in treating Alzheimer's disease in moderate disease only, but not in the early stages of the disease. There is also similar concern about erythropoietin, in that it is not to be prescribed on the NHS for treating the anaemias that often affect cancer patients. I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend says about NICE—it does a rigorous job and is internationally respected—but taking both of those examples together, it is clear that sometimes it looks only at survival rates and cure and does not pay enough attention to quality of life for patients and carers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that NICE could be asked to take more account of such factors than it does at present?

Jane Kennedy: If I thought that what my hon. Friend says is true, I would be seriously concerned. However, when NICE develops guidance on the clinical and cost effectiveness of health technologies such as the Alzheimer's drugs, it takes into account all the factors that he mentions, including quality of life, effect on carers—when appropriate—and savings both to the NHS and personal and social services. It is important that we view the NICE consultation on the subject in the context of all the other services that are available to people who suffer from Alzheimer's, and their carers and families. We are not talking only about a medicine, but a range of support, including psychiatric support and support for carers in a multiplicity of ways. We need to encourage the provision of such support.

Cancer

Sharon Hodgson: If she will make a statement on waiting times for cancer patients.

Rosie Winterton: Waiting times for cancer patients have fallen dramatically in recent years. In 1997, 63 per cent. of people with suspected cancer were seen by a specialist within two weeks of urgent referral by their GP. Today the figure is more than 99 per cent. As at September 2005, 94.4 per cent. of patients were treated within one month of being diagnosed and 80.5 per cent. of patients were treated within 62 days of urgent referral by their GP.

Sharon Hodgson: I agree that that is good news, but will my hon. Friend study early-day motion 1518 on the plight of two of my constituents, Mr. Fergus and Mr. Wilson, who are suffering financial and physical hardship due to the unfairness of the current system of withholding licensed cancer drugs pending NICE approval? Will my hon. Friend assure me that the postcode lottery in prescribing that denies them and many others equity will be addressed?

Rosie Winterton: I shall certainly look at the early-day motion to which my hon. Friend referred. NICE has a clear role in appraising drugs, pulling together all the evidence to consider their cost-effectiveness and whether they will be effective in treatment. On 3 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a single technology appraisal process so that NICE can produce guidance on important drugs to a faster timetable. I assure my hon. Friend that we have made it clear to the NHS that it should not refuse to fund specific drugs or treatment simply because they have not yet been appraised by NICE. We shall update that guidance shortly.

Susan Kramer: I hope that the Minister is aware that a number of people who turn out to have cancer or severe heart disease have to go privately to get a diagnostic scan; not to jump queues, but because many GPs have set the medical indicators so high that they do not catch early-stage cancer. Is the Minister willing to try to identify the number of people who have to take the private route to get life-saving treatment?

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Lady is right to say that there is certainly more that we need to do to ensure that GPs can detect cancer in the early stages and we are doing further work to make sure that the situation improves, as well of course as looking into how we can improve the position with regard to scans, for example. There has been considerable investment, but we accept that there is more to do and we are doing it.

Andrew Lansley: The Minister must know that the specialist cancer services at the Barts hospital site in the Barts and the London NHS trust underpin cancer services across the east of London. The independent report on the Barts hospital redevelopment, published today, states:
	"The planned capacity is in line with anticipated future demand and expert assessment of future models of care and provider efficiencies."
	In the light of that, will the Minister say, contrary to the Secretary of State's assertions on the "Today" programme last week, that the Department of Health has no reservations on the clinical case for the Barts and the London redevelopment?

Rosie Winterton: We have now received the report from the strategic health authority and Ministers will consider the full findings of the review, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to delivering improvements to NHS services in that part of London and that as soon as Ministers have considered the full findings of the review, we will work quickly with the local NHS to finalise consideration of the business case for the Barts and the Royal London private finance initiative scheme.

Andrew Lansley: In responses to my questions, Ministers have told me that there have been 14 meetings since 22 September between the Department and the Barts and the London NHS trust. They must arrive at the point, today, where they make a decision, otherwise there will be rising penalties; £17.5 million a month will be added to the cost of the redevelopment as a result of the delays. We are more than a month beyond when a decision should have been taken. Will the Minister accept that the House will not stand by while Ministers delay a project and make it less affordable and less value for money due to their delays rather than its inherent costs?

Rosie Winterton: May I just make it absolutely clear that we are now looking at the ninth draft of the final business case? It is essential that we have the right balance of services in north-east and wider London before, quite frankly, we make a commitment that will last for 42 years for cancer and cardiac services. It is right that we look carefully at the reports that we have before us and make a decision with all the evidence that is available to us.

Meg Hillier: My colleagues in east London completely agree that we should get good value for money and good provision of services in east London. In that respect, the Government are right to look at this issue, but why has the review taken place now at the twelfth hour?

Rosie Winterton: Obviously, we must be absolutely certain before we commit what are, quite frankly, very large amounts of money to a scheme that it is properly thought out and will deliver the benefits to patients that we wish to see. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want such a scheme to be set up if it had not been properly thought out and reviewed by Ministers to ensure that it delivered for patients, certainly in that area of London.

Smoking

John Leech: What her Department's target is for reducing smoking rates in England.

Caroline Flint: The key public service agreement target, which was published July 2004, is to reduce adult smoking rates to 21 per cent. or less by 2010, with a baseline year of 2002, and a reduction in the prevalence of smoking among routine and manual groups to 26 per cent. or less.

John Leech: Friends of mine who smoke are always telling me that the thing that would have stopped them starting in the first place, or that would certainly help them to stop now, is not being able to smoke in public places. Does the Minister agree that introducing a total ban on smoking would not only help those people to give up, but help to reach the Government's target for reducing smoking rates?

Caroline Flint: I am pleased to say that 28 per cent. of adults smoked in 1998 and that that figure went down to 25 per cent. in 2004, as a result of the Government investing in smoking cessation courses on the NHS and reduced tobacco advertising. Of course, we are introducing a Bill to ban smoking in public places. There are different points of view in all parties, and hon. Members will have a free vote on how wide they want the ban to be.

Prospects for the EU in 2006

Douglas Alexander: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the European Union. Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary published a White Paper on prospects for the European Union. Copies are available in the Vote Office. He has asked me to pass on his apologies to the House for the fact that he is not present in the Chamber, as he is attending the conference on Afghanistan this afternoon.
	In April 2004, the Government decided to publish the first in a series of reports intended to stimulate the closer and deeper involvement of Members of both Houses in EU affairs. Today's White Paper is the fifth such report. It looks at future challenges and provides a detailed report on our presidency, set against the objectives that we set ourselves in the White Paper, published on 30 June 2005 and relayed in a statement to the House on the same day by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
	Notwithstanding the EU's historical achievements, it has faced the pressing challenge in recent years of adapting to an increasingly globalised political and economic environment and of reconnecting as an institution to its citizens. That need was highlighted graphically last spring, when two member states rejected the constitutional treaty and the European Council failed to agree a deal for the next financial perspective—the European budget.
	So when the United Kingdom took over the reins of the presidency in July, we were faced with three tasks. The first task was to follow through on Europe's promise to open accession negotiations with Turkey, against a backdrop of growing uncertainty in some parts of the EU about that aspect of future enlargement. The second task was to agree a deal for the coming financial perspective, and the third task was to begin the process of better preparing the EU for the globalised world.
	First, I turn to enlargement. On 3 October, we opened accession talks with Turkey—that decision was welcomed on, and supported by, both sides of the House. That has the potential to bring huge economic and political benefits to Turkey, Britain and the European Union, not least through the Union's relationship with the wider Islamic world. At the same time, and in a welcome sign of how far the western Balkans has come in recent years, we opened accession negotiations with Croatia, began stabilisation and association agreement negotiations with Bosnia and Serbia and Montenegro, and granted candidate status to Macedonia.
	On the budget, we brokered a deal that will shift spending towards the economic development of the newer, poorer member states and also mean that similar sized economies such as France and Italy will finally be making payments roughly on a par with the United Kingdom. The Council also agreed a full, wide-ranging review covering all aspects of EU spending, including the common agricultural policy, to report in 2008–09.
	Finally, we took practical steps to strengthen economic reform within the European Union. Along with the European Commission, we agreed better ways of assessing the effects of proposed regulation on business. We also reached agreement on the capital requirements directive, which will help the European banking sector to remain competitive, and agreed the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—REACH—regulation. In two other areas directly related to the competitiveness agenda—the services directive and the working time directive—we made some progress during our presidency, and we will work to ensure that that is built on over the coming months.
	Alongside those practical measures, we also began a broader debate on the future of Europe. The special summit of European leaders here in the United Kingdom at Hampton Court in October has already led to detailed work on areas such as improving European universities, increasing support for research and development and establishing a common European energy policy.
	The issues of Turkish accession and the European budget and the debate on the future direction of Europe set the context of our Presidency, but so, too, did other international challenges. As the White Paper reflects, development was a key priority for both the EU and the G8. The European Union agreed, for the first time, a common vision and set out common objectives and principles for development work, as well as a comprehensive strategy on Africa. That will be backed up by the more and better development aid agreed by European member states last year, with aid doubled to $80 billion a year by 2010 and commitments on achieving the UN 0.7 per cent. gross national income target by 2015. The international finance facility for immunisation that we launched in September has the potential to prevent 5 million children from dying over the next 10 years. The deal on sugar reform will reduce trade distortion and, at the same time, save European Union consumers between $3.5 billion and $4 billion a year from 2010.
	Another key area of work was the increasing role of the European Union outside its direct borders. During our presidency, we oversaw the launch of European security and defence policy missions, notably to monitor the Rafah border crossing and the peace agreement in Aceh in Indonesia. The EU worked closely with partners to support Israeli disengagement from Gaza and provided policing and electoral support in Iraq. The E3 continued to lead the ongoing and complex negotiations on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
	During our presidency, the EU also engaged in dialogue with Russia, Ukraine, China and India and agreed a comprehensive work programme for economic co-operation with the United States of America. At the UN climate change negotiations in Montreal, against expectations, it was agreed, with European support, to begin UN talks on long-term action to address climate change and launch a process for agreeing targets beyond 2012.
	We had always planned to ensure that counter-terrorism efforts would be a feature of our presidency. Those efforts inevitably gained far wider currency after the tragic events of 7 July here in London. During our presidency, the EU endorsed a new counter-terrorism strategy, agreed that phone and internet data from across Europe will be stored for use in criminal and terrorist investigations and set out an action plan to tackle radicalisation and the recruitment of terrorists.
	We thus handed over to the Austrians a European Union that was stronger and more confident in the future than the one that we inherited back in July. Just as we inherited an agenda from the Luxembourg presidency, there are a number of areas of work that the Austrians are charged with taking forward. Over the coming year, enlargement will continue to be high on the European agenda. We are confident that Bulgaria and Romania will be ready to join in 2007, but only if they take urgent and vigorous action to address the main areas of concern recently identified by the European Commission. We will continue to provide significant bilateral assistance to help them to achieve that goal.
	We expect both Turkey and Croatia to be ready to open accession negotiations on some individual chapters early in 2006. During his visit to Turkey and Cyprus last week, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reiterated the need for Turkey to ratify and implement the protocol to the Ankara agreement. We are committed, too, to ending the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and finding a way in which it can trade with European Union member states. I am sure that all members of the House would agree on the importance of achieving a successful and ambitious outcome to the Doha development round of world trade talks. We want to build on the frankly disappointing outcome of the Hong Kong ministerial meeting in December, and we will continue to do all that we can to enable the round to be concluded this year.
	That means committing to significantly increased market access for developing countries, particularly in agriculture; substantial reductions in all trade-distorting subsidies, including the elimination of export subsidies, as agreed at Hong Kong; and effective special and differential treatment for developing countries. In the first half of this year, the European Union will take stock of the "period of reflection" agreed by the European Council last June. Among other things, that means evaluating the status of the constitutional treaty. The United Kingdom has always made it very clear that the priority in this period of reflection and, indeed, for the European Union more generally is economic reform and a determined effort to advance work that actually makes a difference to the lives of Europeans.
	That view was endorsed only this month by the President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, who said that we should
	"avoid a new division in Europe about institutions. The most important concern now of EU citizens is not institutional problems, but jobs and growth."
	The focus of the spring European Council will therefore be economic. An important part of that agenda will be the work that the European Union will take forward on the six priority areas agreed at Hampton Court in October: research and development, universities, energy, demographics, security and immigration, and the common foreign and security policy. Finally, the future financial arrangements for the Union, agreed at December's Council, now have to be agreed with the European Parliament through a new inter-institutional agreement on budgetary discipline, which will provide the necessary formal basis for EU spending for the period 2007–13.
	I have set out for the House the key features of the United Kingdom presidency as well as priority areas of work for the European Union over the coming six months. The fuller details in the White Paper published this morning give some sense of the depth of the business done and that which is left to do. As the White Paper makes clear, the Government are convinced that Britain's national interest is best served as a strong, active and influential member of the European Union, and I commend it to the House.

Keith Simpson: May I begin by sending on behalf of the official Opposition our deep condolences to the families and friends of the two British soldiers who were sadly killed in Iraq, the second one being the 100th British soldier killed there? We send our best wishes to the soldiers who were injured.
	I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the statement, and for informing the House about the Government White Paper. Having read and heard the statement, however, many of us regard it as a non-event, to say the least. It is a curious time and place to make a statement but, nevertheless, it raises a number of interesting questions, not least because more than two thirds of the statement was retrospective and did not look at prospects for the EU in 2006.
	The coming year may not be as dramatic as the last for the European Union, but we should be in no doubt of its importance for the EU's future. It will be the time for the   EU to reflect on the constitution's rejection and thelong-term strategic issues that it faces on competitiveness, security and its own future as an institution in the 21st century. The Minister stated the Government's position with his usual confidence, but does he remember that when the Foreign Secretary introduced a similar statement last year, he went into detail about the Government's position on the EU budget? He told the House that the Government were working
	"to ensure that future EU budgets are limited to 1 per cent. of Europe's economic output and that that money is spent where it most adds value."—[Official Report, 3 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 994.]
	However, the Government ended up agreeing a rise in the EU budget to 1.045 per cent., which is an increase of £25 billion, but they obtained no guarantee of further common agricultural policy reform. The Foreign Secretary assured the House that Britain's rebate "remains fully justified" and reminded hon. Members that Britain had a veto. We all know what happened next—the rebate was cut by £7 billion for the budget period. Does the Minister understand that hon. Members are suspicious whether what the Government say will match what the Government actually achieve?
	The White Paper rightly underlines the need for economic reform. Does the Minister agree that the services directive is essential in achieving a more competitive Europe? The European Parliament will vote on the directive in a fortnight. Does the Minister agree that the main aim for member states is to reach a political agreement in the Council by the March economic summit? Does he agree that there has already been extensive consultation with social partners? It would be unacceptable if further consultation became an excuse for yet more delay. Does he agree that the European Parliament's internal market and consumer protection committee has produced a balanced text to ensure the freedom to provide services, and that it should be our common goal to maintain it, particularly with regard to article 16?
	Turning to trade, many hon. Members on both sides of the House were disturbed to hear Commissioner Mandelson say two or three weeks ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not spoken to him recently—it appears that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been ignoring him—which is causing much upset on the Government Benches. I understand that the Minister is a protégé of both Commissioner Mandelson and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which means that he is caught between a rock and a hard place. Nevertheless, will he use his good offices to get them talking? It is good to talk, but on such a crucial issue, it is vital.
	Does the Minister agree that Britain's opt-out from the working time directive is vital to our competitiveness in a globalised marketplace? Will the Government ensure that our opt-out is maintained in its entirety and that it will not be negotiated away in any form?
	Paragraph 143 of the White Paper rightly emphasises the importance of energy security. Does the Minister agree that recent events in Ukraine and Georgia prove the need for secure and diverse supplies? Will the Minister outline in more concrete terms how the Government plan to achieve that?
	All hon. Members agree that Europe's greatest achievement over the past two decades has been the spread of democracy throughout the continent. In March, a presidential election will be held in Europe's last remaining authoritarian state, Belarus. Why does the White Paper not mention that election? What steps will the Government and our European partners take to ensure that that election is free and fair?
	The middle east is a vital area for our security and for the cause of peace in the world, so Hamas's election victory must be a matter of the deepest concern. Will the Minister tell the House the criteria by which the continued funding of the Palestinian Authority by the EU will be judged? Is it not essential that Europe and America hold a united position in dealing with Hamas? Does he agree that if a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority remains wedded to terror, it should not receive EU funding?
	One of the most important questions for the European Union concerns how it can modernise itself to meet the demands of the 21st century. The constitution's defeat in last year's referendums proves that the old model of integration is failing Europe and alienating its people. Does the Minister agree that a British vision of an open, flexible Europe has never been more relevant? Is not that the issue for British leadership? Will the Minister explain why no British Minister attended last week's important Sounds of Europe conference in Salzburg? How do the Government expect to influence the debate, if they do not participate?
	We all agree that the EU needs to be more open and accountable. To that end, what steps are the Government taking to achieve open voting in the Council and a stronger say—the so-called yellow-card procedure—on subsidiarity for national Parliaments? Some member states and EU commissioners still insist that the EU constitution will soon be ripe for revival. This month, the Foreign Secretary told us that
	"it is difficult to argue that the constitution is not dead."—[Official Report, 10 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 147.]
	The dead parrot syndrome. Should not a British Government, leading in Europe, have a clearer view than "perhaps yes" or "perhaps no"?
	Britain's last presidency was marked by the contrast between the hype in the last paper presented to Parliament, and a failure to deliver fully in many areas. Over the next year, we will support the Government where they take practical steps to reform the EU to meet its long-term challenges. But it is now time for the Government to outline a British vision of Europe that can meet those challenges, rather than merely parroting what the EU requires.

Douglas Alexander: I will endeavour to answer the many questions put to me by the hon. Gentleman, who began his contribution rather uncharitably by describing the White Paper as a non-event. I shall resist making the same observation about his response to my statement and instead address his specific questions.
	I shall happily send to the hon. Gentleman the detailed figures on the proportion of European gross national income accounted for in the agreement reached at the December European Council, but my recollection is that by the end of the financial period, the percentage of GNI taken in the European Union's budget will be as low as that achieved in any one of the past 20 years. That is a clear victory for those of us who have argued in recent years for greater EU budgetary discipline. Indeed, comparing the agreement reached at the December European Council with the figures proposed six months earlier by the Luxembourg presidency, or with those previously proposed by the Commission, shows how effectively we argued for taking a lower percentage of European GNI within the EU's budget.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the services directive, and we continue to regard it as important. An unfortunate delay on First Reading prohibited us from reaching a conclusion to our discussions during our presidency, but we want progress to be made during the Austrian presidency. It might assist the House if I make clear the issues that we came close to resolving, but which are still on the table: the directive's scope; whether it should apply to labour law, given that that was never the intention, even according to the original wording of the Bolkestein directive; and the country-of-origin principle. Discussions will continue on each of those issues, but I share the ambition of reaching a conclusion that will result in an effective services directive that can guarantee a much more open market in services. Such a market will directly benefit not just the European Union but, I am convinced, many British companies.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about our discussions with Trade Commissioner Mandelson. Commissioner Mandelson reported the latest position on the EU to an informal meeting of trade Ministers in Brussels on Sunday evening, and another report was made yesterday to the General Affairs Council, which the Foreign Secretary and I attended. A further ministerial discussion took place at the margins of the Davos conference, which took place in Switzerland this weekend. So I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a great deal of discussion is taking place at all levels of government, and not just with the European Commission. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks about the Chancellor from a sedentary position. There is little doubt that the Chancellor has made clear his position concerning an ambitious and balanced outcome for Hong Kong, be it in speeches to the Labour party conference, in recent radio interviews, or in countless speeches made in the cause of achieving greater debt relief, aid assistance and trade justice in the years to come.
	Retaining the opt-out continues to be the British Government's position, and we discussed this issue with our colleagues during the British presidency. Not only was there a blocking minority to any proposed change to the opt-out; we are increasingly winning the argument for the need for flexibility in the development of the European economy in years to come.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about energy supplies in the light of developments in Ukraine and Russia. Such developments partly explain why we had what was widely judged to be an effective and helpful meeting with the Russians—an EU-Russia summit—during our presidency; why one feature of that summit was discussing the need for a structured dialogue on energy; and why at Hampton Court, the Prime Minister showed real prescience in identifying the need for a common approach to energy issues, ahead of the difficult negotiations that took place between Russia and Ukraine at the turn of the year. Taking forward that work on energy policy, we are examining ways of making sure that there is a genuinely open market within the European Union. Issues relating to energy security have been on many people's minds in recent weeks and months, and there is also the pressing matter of diversity of supply. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue the work identified at Hampton Court and now being taken forward.
	I was asked about the omission from the White Paper of reference to Belarus. Only yesterday a leading politician from one of the principal Opposition coalitions in Belarus met a range of delegations in Brussels, at the margins of the General Affairs Council, as well as Javier Solana, the high representative. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the discussions that took place, Belarus was very much in people's minds, not least as we anticipate the elections coming up in March.
	Next, the hon. Gentleman turned to funding for the Palestinian Authority. There is little that I can usefully add to the contribution to the debate that has been made by our Foreign Secretary and by others in recent days, since the Palestinian Authority elections. Suffice to say that the policy remains as stated. In relation to specific British aid, I recollect that approximately half of that aid is in direct budgetary support, although that is suspended at present—indeed, it was suspended prior to the elections—because of our concerns about corruption in the Authority. The overwhelming additional resource is provided through the auspices of the United Nations. This is a subject to which I am sure the House will return in the weeks and months ahead, during which we will see the formation of a Government within the Palestinian Authority.
	I was questioned about the Sounds of Europe conference that took place in Salzburg this weekend, where we were capably and effectively represented by our ambassador to Vienna, Ambassador Macgregor. The conference did not invite all 25 members of the European Union to address the conference. Rather, there was a round-table series of discussions involving academics and members of think tanks. There were contributions from some politicians, and of course British delegates were present at that conference. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not lose any opportunity in the months ahead, whether from public platforms or in private discussions with the Austrian presidency, to continue to press the case for the kind of open Europe that we believe makes sense in a globalised world.
	On subsidiarity, the Sharing Power in Europe conference, which was jointly hosted with the Dutch during our presidency, specifically considered engaging national Parliaments more effectively. It was rather curious for the hon. Gentleman to begin by expressing surprise at Parliament being involved in European Union discussions, and later in the same speech arguing for greater involvement of national Parliaments in the affairs of the European Union. We regard that as an important step that needs to be taken by the EU. That is why we hosted the conference with the Dutch.
	I hope that that addresses each of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, but no doubt other hon. Members will have questions for me in due course.

Gavin Strang: Following yesterday's meeting, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that a united Europe and the United States work together on Iran's nuclear programme, to bring maximum pressure to bear through the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council? Can he assure the House that Ministers are striving to resolve the issue through the UN?

Douglas Alexander: I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. Even the sternest critics of European diplomacy would struggle to question the importance of the work that, along with the French and the Germans, the British Government have been taking forward as part of the so-called E3 process. Since the outset of that process, we have enjoyed and benefited from the support of the United States. I am glad to say that only last night here in London a meeting of the P5 was convened—the five permanent members of the Security Council, with the Germans also in attendance. That conveys an important message that needs to be heard by the Iranians: the growing consensus across the international community about finding a diplomatic solution to a challenging and complex matter.

Nicholas Clegg: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I express our sincerest condolences and sympathy to the families and friends of the two British soldiers who, it was announced today, were tragically killed in Iraq.
	I am grateful to the Minister for giving us advance notice and sight of his statement. There is much in the statement and in the White Paper with which we do not disagree. Some of the achievements of the UK presidency are rightly underlined as important achievements, notably the very significant agreement to launch accession negotiations for Turkey's eventual membership of the European Union—a decision of enormous long-term significance for the future evolution of the EU.
	The White Paper and the statement are characterised by the now time-honoured hyperbole that occurs at the end of presidencies. It is a familiar routine that whoever has occupied the presidency for six months then hypes up its achievements, almost suggesting that any presidency that preceded it or might succeed it could never reach such heights of achievement. Hyperbole aside, much in the White Paper recommends itself. I should like to ask the Minister some questions that might help us to understand whether the decisions taken in the six months of the UK presidency will stand the test of time and be durable decisions that make the difference that is claimed.
	On the famous, or infamous, budget deal, part of that deal includes a commitment that there should be a review of the common agricultural policy some time midway through the next budgetary period. Will that review be conducted by the European Commission? If so, what pressure, if any, will be brought to bear on member states to adhere to any of its recommendations? There is a legitimate concern that a review by the Commission, even were it to advocate the kind of agricultural reform that many people in this House wish for, could summarily be ignored if it was not placed on a more forceful footing. Will the review include proposals for co-financing, which Members on both sides of the House have raised as a possible future solution to the financing of the common agricultural policy?
	The Minister made much of the summit at Hampton Court at which six areas of work were identified as   meriting further investigation—research and development, universities, energy, demographics, security and immigration, and the common foreign and security policy. Can the Minister give us any detail about what occurred at that summit, or subsequently, materially to affect the way in which those policies are being conducted in the European Union? It appeared then, and still appears, to have been a catch-all list of policy areas, ranging from foreign policy through to research and development, which might not contain the substance that he implied in his statement.
	The Minister said that the priority for this period of reflection about the fate of the constitutional treaty, and indeed the European Union more generally, must be on economic reform. That is a sentiment that many Liberal Democrat Members share. But does he think that there is no merit in any debate about the constitutional and institutional future of the European Union? Surely it is impossible to deny that in an enlarged European Union the arrangements that were in place for a much smaller club need some re-examination. Some highly positive reforms are suggested in the constitution, including greater Council openness, rearrangements of the way in which the European Union organises its common foreign and security policy, and the involvement of this House and other national Parliaments in examining EU legislation. Can the Minister assure us that while the emphasis is rightly on economic reform, such crucial constitutional and institutional issues will not be forgotten? They cannot be ignored in a club that has expanded so dramatically in recent months.

Douglas Alexander: I join both spokespeople of the Opposition parties in extending deepest sympathy, on behalf of the Government, to the family of the brave serviceman whose life has been lost in Iraq.
	Let me first tackle the budget deal, especially the review clause, which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) mentioned. He is right that the Commission will undertake a review clause, but it will ultimately be for the European Council to decide whether to implement the changes. They could be effected in the coming financial perspective, which runs until 2013.
	I do not want to prejudge the review's outcome on co-financing. It is right to acknowledge that the matter has been raised on the Floor of the House several times. Other European Governments have also raised it and I suspect that it may well feature in the discussions. However, I cannot prejudge the review's outcome.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about progress on the priorities that were identified at the Hampton Court meeting in October. The six workstreams were subsequently divided into those that high representative Javier Solana would take forward and those that the Commission would tackle. If I recollect correctly, an initial progress report was made to the December European Council.
	Another point merits the House's consideration. The notion of the Hampton Court priorities is already entering the lexicon of European policy making. I have been encouraged by the Austrian presidency's willingness to commit time and resources to taking forward the work that we initiated in Hampton Court. If I were to identify one matter that takes special precedence, it would be the recognition in October of the importance of finding a way forward on energy security and supply and a genuinely more open energy market.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about institutional change. Labour Members have never denied the need for important and sensible institutional changes. Indeed, in the course of our presidency, following the Prime Minister's reply to questions in one of his appearances before the European Parliament, we made progress on the transparency of the Council of Ministers. However, it is right to reiterate that we perceive the key priorities for the coming months to be, as José Manuel Barroso said, jobs and growth in the European Union and the economic reform that that requires.

John Redwood: To save the Austrian presidency and the German Administration time and trouble, will the Minister clearly rule out any new European tax levied through the European Union? Will he rule out introducing the constitution's provisions by the back door before yes votes in all countries that need referendums?

Douglas Alexander: Let me deal with the right hon. Gentleman's latter point first. The Government have consistently made it clear that the mechanism in the United Kingdom whereby the European draft constitutional treaty could be implemented is approval by the House of Commons followed by a referendum of the people of Britain. There is no question of implementing it by the back door.
	I closely followed Chancellor Schüssel's comments at the outset of the Austrian presidency but the British Government's position remains unchanged. In principle, we are not convinced of the case for a European tax. We believe that there should be fair competition in taxation and that the competence for taxation rests with nation states.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I say to my right hon. Friend that there is a genuine danger of his being the longest-serving Minister for Europe in this Administration? I believe that he is about the seventh, on which I congratulate him. I hope that he remains in that position for a long time in the interests of the United Kingdom. The problem is that the Foreign Office often dictates our European policies because Ministers for Europe are not in post for long enough.
	Belarus is the elephant in the room that is not mentioned in the White Paper. I urge my right hon. Friend to address the European Union's policy, which is not a sanction against the existing Government in Belarus.
	Why is there no permanent diplomatic representative in Podgorica, given that, in a few months, Montenegro is likely to be independent and knocking at the door of European Union membership?

Douglas Alexander: Let me deal with both my hon. Friend's questions. On diplomatic representation in Podgorica, I cannot anticipate the outcome of the referendum that is scheduled to take place later this year in Serbia and Montenegro. My understanding of the constitutional provision is that Serbia and Montenegro is entitled to hold that referendum after February this year, and that it will be held a little while after that. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will take the point that he has raised to the relevant individual in the Foreign Office.
	My hon. Friend also asked about Belarus. It is important to emphasise, because this bears more widely on the question of enlargement, that for certain new member states in the European Union of 25 members, Belarus is not a distant country but a near neighbour. We want to see significant change in the approach taken by the regime in Belarus to date, and we should therefore welcome the greater influence that could be brought to bear by those new member states of the European Union taking a full and active role in the development of policy towards that country.

Ian Paisley: I should like to associate my colleagues with the expression of sympathy for those mourning their loved ones who have been lost in Iraq.
	The Minister has clearly stated that we need jobs and expansion. The agriculture and fishing industries in my part of this United Kingdom are in serious crisis. It is strange that in a White Paper that contains 186 paragraphs, only seven refer to agriculture, and that the Minister mentioned it only once in his statement. Has he a programme to present to his colleagues in Europe in the coming days that will help us to save the agriculture and fishing industries in the parts of this United Kingdom that are so sorely pressed at the moment?

Douglas Alexander: The Government's position on the need for the fundamental reform of agriculture—and in particular on the type of support provided to the agricultural sector not only in the United Kingdom but across Europe—was set out in a Government paper published in December during our presidency. I appreciate the concerns about agriculture and fishing that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, and I will ensure that they are passed on to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Doug Henderson: May I follow on from the point raised by my right   hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) about Iran? Does the Minister agree that the E3 grouping is crucial in this regard because of the limitations of the United Nations, not in coming to a policy position but in acting on that position and trying to broker a settlement? Does he agree that this is a key role for the European Union, and that the E3 would have no credibility without its role in the European Union? Does he also agree that the European Union needs to promote its role in dealing with such issues? Will he ask the Austrian presidency for some initiatives on this matter?

Douglas Alexander: I will certainly take note of my hon. Friend's final point. The significance of the E3 process speaks to the effective joint working between ourselves, the French and the Germans. It is no secret that there have been disagreements in the past between ourselves and one if not both of those countries on specific issues of concern in the European Union. Notwithstanding whatever challenges we may have faced bilaterally, however, I am heartened by the effective way in which we have worked directly with Berlin and Paris on this issue.
	My hon. Friend's question also raises the broader issue of the effectiveness of the United Nations. We have Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, here with us in London today. I was particularly encouraged by some of the conclusions that were reached at the millennium review summit in New York in September. I had the opportunity to represent the British Government the following week at the United Nations General Assembly and to take part in meetings on behalf of the European Union during the course of that week. It was made very clear to me by the permanent representative of this Government that, had it not been for the significant steps taken by European nations in particular, prior to that summit, we would not have been able to secure the commitments either on development or on United Nations reform that many of us welcomed at the conclusion of the summit.

David Curry: Does the Minister not realise how little time remains before the Doha development round collapses? If it is not completed before the expiry of fast-track authority in the United States, it will not be completed at all. Do the British Government believe that it is now time for the European Union to make a further offer on agriculture?

Douglas Alexander: First, on the timing of the fast-track procedure, although that does not expire until 2007, any practical assessment of when decisions need to be reached requires us to aim for conclusion of the round itself by the end of this calendar year. That is why I said in my statement that we are keen to ensure that we reach an ambitious and balanced outcome in 2006 to allow sufficient authority for the President to be able to use the fast-track procedure in 2007, before it expires.
	On the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's point, I can assure him that we are in discussion with our other European partners—and, indeed with other countries—on how we might secure the sequenced changes to the trade rules that we were unable to secure ahead of December. The European Union has a role to play, but most observers recognise that, increasingly, Brazil and India, and certainly the United States, also have a role to play. That was, in part, the substance of the discussions that took place in the margins of the Davos conference this weekend.

Jim Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend bring us up to date on the time scale for Turkey joining the EU?

Douglas Alexander: I can probably do no better than quote the Turkish Government's own assessment of the time scale—they estimate more than a decade, notwithstanding the opening of accession talks on 3 October last year. That reflects the scale of the transformation necessary to be achieved in Turkey, but we continue to believe that it will be the right choice for Turkey, for Europe and, indeed, for Britain.

Bernard Jenkin: On the question of the failed free trade talks in Hong Kong, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) from the Front Bench and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), is not that failure directly attributable to the EU's failure to offer a reduced agricultural subsidy in that round? Is not that, in turn, directly attributable to the Government's failure to deal with the budget issue? How is the EU meant to offer reduced agricultural spending when it had already been agreed in the botched budget deal given by the Prime Minister? Is it not time for the Government to be more open about what this will cost? At the moment, they are refusing to answer questions that are on—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Douglas Alexander: It is time for the hon. Gentleman to be more accurate in his questions. The mandate from which the Trade Commissioner operates was agreed in the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council. That is a matter of record. I fully accept, and want, further progress on agriculture, and specifically on agricultural subsidies. I was heartened in December that we managed to secure agreement on agricultural export subsidies, albeit for the later date of 2013. It is a manifesto commitment for us that we would have liked agricultural export subsidies to be phased out by 2010. None the less, there is some progress on which we can build in the months ahead.
	It also has to be acknowledged that as well as the EU making offers in relation to agriculture, which preceded the December Hong Kong talks, there is an increasing responsibility that needs to be borne by other key partners in those trade talks. This is partly, not solely, an issue of agriculture. There is also the key issue of non-agricultural market access, which is why it is important that, in the weeks to come, we should talk to other partners—principally Brazil and India, but also the United States—to see whether we can secure the sequenced series of offers that would allow real progress, which eluded us all in Hong Kong.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The European Union will have to take a decision very rapidly on whether it intends to continue its large contribution to the Palestinian Authority in terms of support. Where will that decision be taken? What will the Government's advice be?

Douglas Alexander: I have already set the position before the House. On the consequences of the decision reached by the Palestinian people, we respect a democratic decision when it is reached, but equally we are clear about the fact that Hamas now faces the primary responsibility. It is for Hamas to answer the question whether it recognises what everyone in the House would recognise, which is that people cannot simultaneously advocate and perpetrate violence while operating as a democratic Government.
	The formation of a Government for the new Palestinian Authority will, I understand, take a number of weeks. This matter was discussed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council—the meeting of Foreign Ministers from across the EU—yesterday, but I am unwilling to say, and unenthusiastic about saying, anything today that would do other than place the responsibility for answering that pressing question principally on the shoulders of Hamas.

Vincent Cable: Do the Government support the proposed enlargement of economic and monetary union to include three eastern European countries, and how would that affect the prospects of British entry?

Douglas Alexander: It will perhaps not surprise the hon. Gentleman that I have nothing new to add to our policy, set out to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in December 1997, if I recollect accurately, on the key economic tests in relation to the single currency. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the three new member states seeking membership of EMU, that is entirely a matter for them. In that regard, we would allow the decision to be taken on the basis of what they judge to be in their interests, given the obligations under which they entered the European Union.

Tony Lloyd: To return to the services directive, I urge my right hon. Friend not to listen to the Opposition's seemingly uncritical view of the directive, but to stick with what he told the House some moments ago. If not properly constructed, the directive will cause real concern, not simply to employees but to employers, particularly in terms of the country of origin issue. Were the directive to be passed in its present form, it could seriously jeopardise the ability of many companies in this country to operate without seeing terms and conditions—not simply labour rates but other important contractual terms—set at nought. It is really important that we get this right, and I hope that the Government will stick to their position and get a proper deal.

Douglas Alexander: I think that a balance needs to be struck. On the one hand, there is no doubt that the terms of the original Bolkestein directive did not find favour with many European partners. In that sense, I would fully expect changes to the terms of the original directive. On the other hand, the Government continue to believe as a matter of principle, and on the basis of the evidence available to us, that there is much for the European Union to gain by having an effective services directive. If one considers, for example, the progress made in prosperity and growth as a consequence of the original establishment of the single market, it ill behoves others to criticise the prospect of a genuinely single market in services. It is right, however, to have due consideration for the concerns raised, for example, in relation to labour law, as it was never the intention of those who designed the services directive to change the position fundamentally on labour law. That is why we welcome the ongoing discussions, but we would be keen to see a resolution so that we can secure the very jobs and growth about which José Manuel Barroso spoke only a few weeks ago.

Damian Green: The Minister talked about enlargement and, clearly, one of the key benefits of enlargement is the strengthening of democracy. With an increasingly belligerent Russian Government behaving in damaging ways towards their near neighbours, will he confirm that small countries such as Moldova, which are not yet engaged in accession negotiations, can retain some hope of eventual EU membership? That hope is a real factor in strengthening democratic institutions in that sort of country.

Douglas Alexander: I am fully aware of the importance of the prospect of European Union membership in securing the transition towards effective democracy. I had the privilege of travelling to the western Balkans in September during the British presidency, and saw for myself the tangible evidence that the prospect of European Union membership is perhaps the strongest single motor driving those countries out of a history of ethnic cleansing and civil unrest. The prospects for future enlargement of the European Union are best described on the basis of the existing treaties. In that sense, the basis for an application to be received by the European Commission in relation to further candidates in future is a matter of record.

Keith Vaz: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his impressive work during the presidency and I welcome the commitment in the White Paper to economic reform. He will know that although the United Kingdom has reached seven of the 17 quantifiable benchmarks under the Lisbon agenda, France, Germany and Spain have reached only three. What steps will he take to ensure that our colleagues in the European Union embrace economic reform as effectively as we have done, especially in the run-up to the European Council business meeting in a few weeks' time?

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of economic reform. We have already worked closely with the Austrians to ensure that the focus of the spring Council meeting will be on exactly the subject of economic reform. We have sought to make progress in relation to the better regulation agenda over recent weeks, but the recent spring report by the European Commission highlights the scale of work that still needs to be taken forward on the Lisbon agenda, which he had so much direct responsibility for authoring several years ago.

Quentin Davies: May I introduce a dissenting note on Turkey? I am aware that there is consensus between the three Front Benches on Turkish accession, but does it really make sense for us to talk in terms of a state joining the European Union when that state does not recognise an existing member state and prosecutes people for writing books on Turkish or Armenian history?
	Is there not a real danger in holding out the hope of Turkish accession? It is very likely to be vetoed through either parliamentary vote or referendum by one of the existing member states in some years' time, and that would create a major long-term crisis in our relations with Turkey. Would it not be better to talk in terms of a special relationship that does not involve full accession?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman can always be relied on to ensure that consensus does not break out absolutely in the House. I pay tribute to his long-standing interest in these issues. As for the idea of some kind of privileged partnership, Turkey has had that with the European Union for a number of years. A customs union—the Ankara protocol, which I have mentioned—applies to the original EU Fifteen, and the prospect of EU membership has been held out to Turkey for 42 years.The debate has been well rehearsed, especially the hon. Gentleman's argument about the non-recognition of an EU member state. Such issues can, of course, be addressed during the accession talks.
	I find common ground with the hon. Gentleman, however, on the need for fundamental reform in the Turkish economy and, indeed, in Turkish society more generally. Labour Members are convinced that those of us who share an interest in a more democratic and effective Turkey would best serve the interests of that goal by seeing Turkey join the EU, if it adheres to the rigorous thresholds of accessibility that are set out for all candidate countries.
	I genuinely believe, in relation to, for instance, the case of Orhan Pamuk—who, incidentally, said that he did not wish his trial to be seen as a bar to EU membership for Turkey—that those of us who continue to be concerned about human rights have a great deal to gain from the high level of scrutiny that will take place on civil and human rights issues relating to Turkey, given the accession process that is now under way. There is a long way to go, but continuing the accession process gives us the best guarantee we can have that the scrutiny will continue.

Kate Hoey: The Minister made an interesting statement, but, as I suspect he will agree, it will not make my constituents jump up and down in great excitement. Will he now deal with two issues that do concern them?
	First, has the Minister any intention of giving more priority to stopping the gold-plating of all the EU directives to which we sign up and then reinforce to a much greater extent than the rest of Europe? Secondly, what will he do to protect the pint?

John Bercow: Very sound!

Douglas Alexander: Again, I had no fear that consensus would break out when my hon. Friend rose.
	I can assure my hon. Friend and, indeed, her constituents that I made inquiries of officials about the pint only this morning. I understood from them that the matter was raised by the European Parliament rather than the Commission. The suggestion in many British newspapers that there is a devilish plot by the European Commission against the great British pint is simply untrue. There is no recommendation that we should see the end of, for example, the pint of beer or the pint of milk. On the other hand, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that there can be common measures across the EU—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Let me answer the question. Those common measures are to guarantee the degree of transparency that is necessary to ensure that suppliers of products are not able to hoodwink consumers. If my hon. Friend opposes greater transparency in pricing, that might be of direct concern to her constituents.

Richard Shepherd: I think that this was a batsqueak of a statement with very little substance behind it, and a reflection of the vanity of those who govern us at present. Matters of great substance have not been addressed, such as international competitiveness for the British economy and how we can recapture or retain our ability to make judgments on regulations—a point raised by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).
	I am struck by the sheer emptiness of the Government's strutting over the past six months. They gave away a huge negotiating hand in terms of the budget. Where is the reform of the common agricultural policy, which is so detrimental to the third world and those who are poor? This was a nothing statement, and an ecological waste of all the paper produced to send more words into the air.

Douglas Alexander: With the greatest respect, I disagree. On the issue of economic reform, not only was there progress on the better regulation agenda, but we set down a course that will, I believe, yield results. Better regulation, whether in Whitehall or Brussels, involves not just process changes—for example, regulatory impact assessments—but cultural change. I was heartened in particular by the comment of Commissioner Verheugen during the British presidency that he now regards better regulation as a key priority, not simply for the presidency of the European Union for six months, but for the Commission.
	On the hon. Gentleman's point about the common agricultural policy, we continue to argue for fundamental reform. We set out our position in the Government paper that was published in December. We have secured the 2008–09 review, of which I spoke in my statement and which was mentioned in the White Paper. That will be the means by which we can secure further reform of how Europe spends its money.
	As for whether it was worth having the White Paper or, indeed, the statement, the Conservative party cannot have it both ways. It argues that national Parliaments are being disregarded in European policy-making, but when there is an opportunity seriously to discuss European issues, it chooses to indulge in arguments that are not entirely convincing.
	With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will also address the other point that was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister does not need to do that. That was not a question that I allowed.

Julie Kirkbride: On the intervention by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) about the future of the pint, if, as the Minister says, we have to have more transparency and more standard measures in the European Union, what hope will there be of saving the pint in the UK?

Douglas Alexander: I do not know how much more clearly I can put it. I am convinced that there is no threat to either the British pint of beer or the British pint of milk. I was making a general point. I think that, within a single market—I hope that, as a supporter of the single market, the hon. Lady may agree with this point—there is a case for ensuring transparency for consumers. If she disagrees with transparency for consumers, perhaps she could get in touch with me and confirm that.

Jim Devine: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, unlike the Conservative party when it was in power, we have a commitment to the development of Africa. Is he convinced that European leaders share our commitment?

Douglas Alexander: I was heartened by the fact that we agreed a strategy for Africa at the December Council of the European Union. That decision came after a decision last year by European Union Finance Ministers and, before that, Development Ministers, significantly to increase the level of development assistance both to Africa and to other developing areas of the world. I believe that one of the things that the British presidency and the European Union in 2005 will be remembered for is the significant progress on the development agenda. The credit for that goes not to one country, but to all 25.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on. I will give the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) some priority at the next statement.

Trade in Endangered Animals on the Internet

Mark Pritchard: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to end the trade in endangered animals on the internet; and for connected purposes.
	The trade of endangered animals on the internet is agrowing and serious problem. Independent commentators estimate that the trade is worth up to £25 billion globally and up to £3 billion involving UK websites and consumers. Those large figures include both live and dead animals and animal products. Today, I would like to disaggregate those figures and focus on the millions of pounds being spent in the sale of live endangered animals on the internet, driving some of those species near to extinction.
	It may come as a shock to some hon. Members to discover that this morning, in my office at the House of Commons, I logged on to the internet and could have purchased a leopard, a zebra, sea turtles, chimpanzees, an American bald eagle, an alligator, a dromedary, a mountain lion and a Lear's macaw. Sadly, the list goes on and on. I was very interested to hear from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) about the elephant in the room at the Foreign Office. That escaped my research, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pass on the details to me.
	In August 2005, the International Fund for Animal Welfare found that 9,000 endangered live animals were offered for sale online in one week. That search was limited to five categories of animal, but I am sure that the House will be interested to know that animals of all categories are sold every minute of every day, year after year. That same research found that 146 primates were available for sale in the UK. All of the sales were illegal: all the animals were endangered, and all were being traded through UK-registered websites. We do not know where the animals involved in such sales come from, how they are transported, or the conditions in which they are kept.
	The Government rightly recognise the need to protect the environment, but what about the natural environment? Given the obvious scale of the problem, is not it incumbent on the Government, industry and us all to do far more to tackle this serious problem? The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), is attending the debate, and I know that he is a good-natured man who takes animal welfare very seriously. I hope that he will consider the suggestions that I have to make, especially given that the Animal Welfare Bill is currently before the House.
	What could the Government do? First, I encourage them to work in collaboration with internet service providers and auction houses to launch a public awareness campaign on this matter. That campaign should be targeted at both consumers and traders and should inform them about what is lawful and what is not. Secondly, I encourage the Government to establish a hotline—for telephones and/or e-mails—so that illegal activity can be reported to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That information should then be shared with wildlife crime officers and the police.
	Thirdly, a legal help desk should be set up so that people who are not sure about the law can contact someone to obtain clarification. Very often, the terms and conditions of websites involved in this trade are hidden somewhere in the back of beyond in the ISP's terms and conditions. We need to expose what is lawful and what is not. Finally, as I said earlier, the Government should liaise more closely with crime enforcement agencies.
	Earlier, I saw the Home Secretary appear briefly in the Chamber before dashing out. I wish that he had stayed, because I know that the Government are keen on targets. I hope that the Minister will speak gentle words of encouragement in the right hon. Gentleman's ear about the adoption of a new Home Office target to ensure that police forces around the country bring successful prosecutions of those involved in this illegal trade, leading to their conviction. The House will be astounded to hear that only two successful prosecutions were brought last year for trade involving endangered animals. In both cases, the animals were dead and stuffed, but we know that there is a trade in live animals. With the greatest respect, I believe that the fact that there has not been a single prosecution in respect of the trade in live animals is an indictment of the Government.
	The Government and the Minister could take the lead in this matter, both in this country and in Europe. Under the convention on international trade in endangered species, they could use our EU block vote to lead the way internationally. There is a CITES conference in June next year: I hope that the Minister will go there and declare that the UK is leading the way on animal welfare and that it has forged agreement in Europe about a new way forward on the matter.
	Possibly the best and most immediate way to deal with the illegal trade in endangered animals is to establish a code of conduct for all ISPs and those involved in the internet market place to ensure that they do not facilitate the sale of endangered animals, directly or indirectly, through their products and services. As a Conservative, I hope that that could be achieved through a voluntary code, not a statutory one. We will have to wait and see whether the ISPs are prepared to go along with that.
	What can ISPs do? We know that web content can be curbed because we have seen the excellent work of the Internet Watch Foundation, which works to prevent access to child pornography. ISPs should work in partnership, perhaps with the Government, to extend their remit to involve animal watch internet work. If they are not prepared, or are unable, to do that, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs needs to work with them to set up a dedicated animal watch foundation to ensure that that evil trade stops.
	It is no longer good enough for ISPs or the Government to argue that such a task is too great, too complex or the amount of data too overwhelming. We know that when ISPs have a will, they can find a way. For example, they can monitor, block and stop links from sites that promote political thought or messages. We have seen that with Google in China in the past week. If Google and other ISPs can regulate free speech in China, the least they can do is regulate the sale of endangered animals on the internet in the UK.
	ISPs should also co-operate with Government and each other in agreeing a code of conduct. They should make it easier to report illegal activity, because current abuse processes are not user friendly, and provide better training for staff. ISPs should not see this Bill as a threat to their business, but as an opportunity to differentiate their products so that discerning and promiscuous—in the marketing sense—consumers can say, "I do not want to give my money to this ISP if it is not animal welfare friendly." Consumers should make the choice. They should email their ISP and threaten to take their business elsewhere unless this issue is taken seriously. I hope that the Government will take the lead on that. ISPs could gain a competitive advantage by taking this matter seriously.
	If ISPs do not take action, consumers will, and the courts might. There is a case before the courts at present, but I shall not go into detail. However, we know that the courts may take action if the Government do not. This is a serious and growing problem and I hope that the Government will take it more seriously. I know that the Minister is serious about animal welfare—this is his opportunity to prove that to the country and to put an end to this abhorrent trade.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mark Pritchard, Mr. Roger Gale, Jeremy Wright, David Howarth, Mr. Eric Martlew, Hugh Robertson, Mr. David Drew, Michael Fabricant, Ms Celia Barlow, Mr. John Randall, David T. C. Davies and Mr. Edward Vaizey.

Trade in Endangered Animals on the Internet

Mark Pritchard accordingly presented a Bill to end the trade in endangered animals on the internet; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May, and to be printed [Bill 122].

Point of Order

David Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance as a defender of Back-Bench interests. How can I glean from the Home Office how it spent £32 million of taxpayers' money on renovating a building yet refused to answer one parliamentary question and two freedom of information requests?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can of course raise the matter on a point of order and I suggest that he persists until he gets the information he needs.

RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS HATRED BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 83A(6)(Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21st June 2005 (Racial and Religious Hatred Bill (Programme)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Coaker.]
	The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.
	Question agreed to.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When a matter of such constitutional importance is to be debated is it normal for people to call unnecessary votes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is well aware that that, fortunately, is not a matter for the Chair.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the fact that all four Lords amendments are to be debated together. Mr. Speaker's selection shows that a number of Opposition and Back-Bench amendments have been grouped with Government propositions. Members will wish to know that if the questions on the Lords amendments have to be put under the programme motion Standing Order No. 83F does not allow the Speaker discretion to call propositions other than those moved by the Government.
	Lords amendment: No. 1, page 1, line 2, leave out "Part 3 of"

Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 2 and Government motion to disagree.
	Lords amendment No. 3.
	Lords amendment No. 4 and Government motion to disagree.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 4 and amendments (i) to (iii), (xxiii), (iv) to (vi), (xxiv), (vii) to (ix), (xxv), (x) to (xii), (xxvi), (xiii) to (xv), (xxvii) and (xvi) to (xxii) thereto.

Paul Goggins: This promises to be yet another interesting and wide-ranging debate on an important issue. In moving the motions in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary let me make it clear to the House that the Government support Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 3, but not Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 4.
	The Bill was last debated in the House on 11 July 2005, on Report and Third Reading. A number of hon. Members expressed concerns, not so much about the Government's policy aims, but about what they feared would be unintended consequences in relation to the freedom of expression. The Bill passed with a substantial majority, but further debate and Divisions in the other place resulted in substantial changes being made.
	The Lords amendments make four significant alterations. They separate the religious hatred offences from the racial hatred offences. They remove what was known as the "likely limb", so that only intentional behaviour will be caught. They insert a wide-ranging freedom of expression provision and remove the words "abusive and insulting" from the offence, so that only threatening speech and behaviour will be caught. Those changes considerably reduce the scope of the Bill, to the extent that, in our view, it would be virtually impossible to bring a successful prosecution.

John Redwood: Can the Minister explain why Labour Ministers are so down on the civil liberties of freedom of speech that they now wish to hound religious groups?

Paul Goggins: It is important that we adopt a measured and constructive tone in the debate. That is certainly what I intend to do and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise by the end of my introductory remarks that the Government are firmly committed to the freedom of expression and that we will fulfil the promise that we made in earlier debates that, if it was possible to find words that would include a commitment to freedom of expression in the Bill, we would do so, and I will come to that in a few moments.
	Although the Government were clearly disappointed that their lordships decided to take such an approach, one thing at least is now clear: there is now a consensus that an offence of incitement to religious hatred should be placed on the statute book. The Government have listened, as we said we would, to the widely and deeply held concerns that have been expressed. I fully accept that those views are sincerely and very strongly held both by hon. Members and people outside the House.
	In the search for common ground, we have given careful thought to the way that the Bill is framed and taken into consideration a wide range of opinion. As a result, a number of those who actively opposed the Bill as originally drafted have indicated their acceptance of the Government's proposals. We believe that the amendments that we have tabled for consideration today strike the right balance and it may help the House if I set out our approach to them.

Evan Harris: The Minister gives the impression that he has made concessions, but this is his message in the Labour party briefing:
	"Is this a climb-down by the Government? Definitely not. Isn't this a watered down bill from your original proposals? No. The Bill does essentially what was originally proposed."
	Does the Minister accept that at least he is saying that we are back where we were the first time around, to all intents and purposes?

Paul Goggins: No, I do not accept that position. Our proposals will give us a Bill that deals with not only incitement to religious hatred, but the kind of assurances sought by those who have raised their genuinely and honestly held, strong beliefs with me as the Minister outside the House and during debates.

Iris Robinson: Can the Minister explain whether if at a Christian open-air meeting reference were made to there being only one true God and to Jesus Christ, his son, being the only intermediator between God and man for the forgiveness of sins, that most basic and fundamental cornerstone of the Christian faith would be viewed as incitement to religious hatred?

Paul Goggins: The hon. Lady asks a serious question about a serious subject and my answer to her is absolutely not. That would not be covered by the offence. It would not have been covered even as the Bill was originally drafted and it certainly will not be covered if the Government amendments are accepted because they make it absolutely clear that an individual must have the intention of stirring up hatred, or stir up hatred by acting recklessly through their behaviour or use of words.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Paul Goggins: There will be plenty of time for hon. Members to intervene, so please let me finish my reply to the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson).
	If it is clear that people have intended to stir up hatred, or behaved recklessly, they will be caught. If people express a strong religious belief, or adopt an attitude of ridicule, they will not be caught, even if they use intemperate language, unless there is clear intention.

Ian Paisley: This is an important issue because there was a recent case involving a minister of religion. He was standing in the open air on Christmas day reading the birth record of our Lord Jesus Christ in the gospel of Matthew, as he had done for years. A police officer said to him, "You must stop reading this because it has been objected to," and told the people standing round that they had to move on. I have accepted what has been said by Ministers and spoken about those assurances in speeches that I have made. However, when such a thing happens, we run into great difficulty.

Paul Goggins: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I accept that there is sometimes a lack of clarity in the way in which the law is interpreted. I have said in Committee and on the Floor that, when the Bill is enacted, it will be important to draft appropriate guidance for the police and Crown Prosecution Service, in consultation with organisations outside the House, so that there is confidence in how the law will be interpreted.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Further to the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson), can my hon. Friend confirm that my constituents would not be caught by the Bill for saying, "There is forgiveness only in the name of Jesus," or, "Mohammed's marriage to a six-year-old was immoral, and a call for the right to marry children is to be condemned as immoral."?

Paul Goggins: I can confirm that to my hon. Friend. I hope that hon. Members throughout the House will take this as an assurance in response to various questions that have been asked of them: people will not be caught by the Bill if they use language about their belief, or other beliefs, even to the point at which the language is abusive and insulting, if they do not intend to stir up hatred.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Paul Goggins: It has been pointed out by Opposition Members that we have three hours for the debate, so I would now like to go through the four areas that are fundamental to my argument. I will of course take interventions at appropriate moments, but if I do not start to make those points now, I will not have even started my speech before the interventions end.
	First, I make it clear to the House that we now accept that the religious hatred offences should be separate from the existing racial offences in line with the framework agreed in the other place. The amendments mean that the offences will now form a new part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986, rather than being simply an extension of the racial offences in part 3 of the Act to cover religious hatred. The Government have had to think long and hard about that because we always argued for parity between the racial and religious offences. However, we have come to the view that as long as we can achieve a viable offence of incitement to religious hatred within that format, we should agree to the new framework.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister accept that separation is meaningful only if there is a difference? As I read the proposals, there is no difference. What does he see as the difference?

Paul Goggins: There are differences because incitement to racial hatred will still have a likely limb, whereas incitement to religious hatred will have a recklessness limb. This is a serious business. As the Minister in charge of the Bill, I have considered it my responsibility to engage in constructive discussions to determine whether we can achieve the objective of attaining a measure that was a commitment in the Labour party's manifesto at the last election in a way that will calm people's fears and represent a practical way forward. There are differences, but we will achieve our objective of introducing a Bill that tackles incitement to religious hatred and which means something in practice.

Dominic Grieve: I accept that genuine efforts have been made to try to reach consensus, although they have plainly failed. The Minister has decided to stop trying to find absolute parity with racial hatred provisions. In the circumstances, that is a major concession, because the Government placed a huge emphasis on that parity and, indeed, sold it to a large number of communities as such. Having made that concession, why do they not accept the logic of the Lords amendments that the offence of incitement to religious hatred should have a much narrower focus? The amendments that the Government are seeking to overturn would largely turn the Bill back into its original form.

Paul Goggins: What I said was that we were not seeking absolute parity, because I wanted to make a point about complete intransigence and the failure to engage in dialogue people who hold a different view. There is not absolute parity, but we do not want the offences to be so far apart that the difference between the two is very great indeed, because we would not achieve our objective.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Paul Goggins: I shall accept two further interventions before pressing on.

Bob Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the precincts of Parliament, the police have been deployed in extraordinary numbers to watch and to herd into a corner a peaceful group of Christians who are singing hymns. Is that restriction of people's right to come here and demonstrate peacefully a good or decent advert for our Parliament, or does it foretell the way in which the Bill may be used?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware of the proceedings to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I trust that they can be safely left to the Serjeant at Arms and the House authorities. I suggest that we make progress with the matter before us.

Paul Goggins: I was just about to indicate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) before I press on with my next point.

Denis MacShane: Wearing three hats as a former president of the National Union of Journalists, as someone who has attended many freedom of information trials in different parts of the world and as the current chairman of an all-party inquiry into anti-Semitism, may I point out that the key provision for working journalists is proposed section 29K? It says that someone is not guilty of an offence if their action
	"consists of criticising, expressing antipathy towards, abusing, insulting or ridiculing (or seeking to ridicule) any religion, religious belief or religious practice".—[Interruption.]
	By any measure of plain English, that gives protection to any journalist, any latter-day Voltaire, anyone writing the equivalent of "The Merchant of Venice", and anyone willing to criticise the Koran and the Bible. I hope that the Minister will stick to his guns and that the views of individuals who have caused huge offence to many of my Muslim constituents, who are anxious that the House of Commons should not reject their genuine beliefs and concerns, are not taken into account when we vote tonight.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House were shouting "unless" as he read the provision. They were referring to the end of the provision, which says
	"unless he intends . . . to stir up religious hatred".—[Interruption.]
	I am familiar with the wording of the motion that I moved. The provision would also apply if the person behaved recklessly.

David Davies: rose—

Paul Goggins: I am not giving way.
	The provision would apply if someone understood that their behaviour could stir up religious hatred, yet persisted with that action. I shall come on to that later. There is no reason why someone in the pulpit or on the stage of a theatre should be allowed to exploit a loophole in the law. If their intention is genuinely to stir up hatred they, too, should be caught by the law.

Tony Wright: A number of hon. Members have provided the Minister with example statements and asked him whether the Bill would catch them. In each case, he has said that the Bill would not catch that statement, but it would be helpful if he provided an example of a statement that the Bill would catch.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and shall provide him with an example that I used earlier today and on other occasions. The example involves a poster that depicts women, some of whom are white British and some of whom are not, wearing the burqa and that includes quotes from the Koran. The poster states that such women cannot be trusted, because they are recruited in various parts of the world as suicide bombers, and asks what they are hiding under their ugly clothes. That could be the kind of material that would be relevant under the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I shall give way to him in a moment.
	It is difficult to provide precise examples, which may or may not be relevant. We are seeking to close a loophole in the law. The loophole is not huge, and we do not expect dozens of prosecutions every year. None the less, there is a gap in the current law, and we intend to fill it.

Dominic Grieve: On the Minister's example, is it not the case that such a poster would be caught by the existing provisions of the Public Order Act 1986? He need only read the case of Norwood to see that the existing provisions of the 1986 Act would catch such behaviour. Does that not highlight the lack of need for the provision? If the provision is to mean anything, it must go much further than the Minister's illustration, and I must say that it has that capacity.

Paul Goggins: I provided that example because the poster incites hatred rather than a criminal act. The offence is not racial, because the poster depicts white British people in addition to Asian people. It is not covered by existing provisions on religiously aggravated offences and it does not involve damage. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the Public Order Act 1986 might cover the matter, but only if someone were distressed or harassed by seeing the poster. Even so, the maximum penalty for such an offence is only up to six months in prison, while the penalty under the Bill is more severe, which is appropriate. He must acknowledge that there are many circumstances in which the Public Order Act 1986 would not be sufficient.

David Winnick: Those of us who support the measure simply want to give Muslims the same protection in law, for which many hon. Members fought 40 years ago, as Jews and—this came later—Sikhs. I understand the criticism from people such as Rowan Atkinson, who is understandably afraid that it will not be possible to criticise religion itself. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, however, the supplementary provisions such as proposed new paragraph 29K make it clear that religion itself can continue to be criticised and that there is no way in which the Bill can stop such criticism.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend, who has taken us back over 40 years. I welcome the protection that the new provision will provide for Muslims, Hindus, Christians and those of no religious belief.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Paul Goggins: I have made one substantive point and I have three more to make. As I have said, I am relaxed about taking interventions but I must make progress.
	The second effect of the amendments agreed by their Lordships is the removal of what was known as the "likely limb", leaving only intent as the threshold for prosecutions under the offence. It remains our clear view that intent by itself is not enough, but rather than seeking to reinstate the likely limb, we have decided to introduce an additional test of subjective recklessness, so for a prosecution to succeed, it would be necessary to prove either that someone intended to stir up hatred, or that they were aware that their actions or words would stir up religious hatred, yet they continued. No one could be caught out inadvertently, as some have feared.
	It is worth pointing out that, in Committee, Opposition Members suggested that a recklessness provision might be a good substitute for the likely limb. Indeed, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that such a provision
	"is a sensible test, and one with which juries and judges are enormously familiar."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 30 June 2005; col. 83.]
	In the same debate, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) said:
	"I understand that the law uses recklessness as a benchmark to judge whether the perpetrator knew what they were doing and what the likely consequences of it would be, but proceeded to do it anyway."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 30 June 2005; col. 85.]
	I therefore hope that the addition of a recklessness test will provide further common ground.

Dominic Grieve: It will come as no surprise to the Minister to learn that if the choice is between a subjective recklessness test and the "likely limb", I prefer the former, because the latter is even worse than the former. But as he knows from our discussions, such a test would be appropriate only where the offence is confined to threatening behaviour; even then, that in itself would be a contentious matter. Once the Government reintroduce the notion that the offence can be committed through abusive or insulting language or behaviour, any form of  recklessness—whether subjective or objective—becomes completely inappropriate.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman will make his own mind up on this issue. I merely point out that the addition of the recklessness test, which was informed by his own contribution in Committee, is a move forward from the previous position and marks a very constructive step forward.

Jim Cunningham: Who will apply the test—the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend brings us back to the very important issue of the Attorney-General's role. Of course, if there is a complaint the police must investigate it, and if there is evidence, they share it with the Crown Prosecution Service. It is at that stage that the Attorney-General has personally to sanction any prosecution. That is a further hurdle in respect of this offence that ought to give people additional confidence.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: The question of recklessness is, in truth, the most important part of this debate. It is also one reason why our discussion of proposed new section 29K and the "unless" clause was interrupted so often. The "unless" clause introduces the question of recklessness and with great respect to the Minister, recklessness is not knowing that one's actions would stir up religious hatred; it is knowing that one's actions are likely to stir up religious hatred. There is a considerable difference between the two, and on that basis I bring the Minister back to an earlier, helpful intervention. The example was given of the following statement: "Mohammed's marriage to a six-year-old was immoral, and a call for the right to marry children is to be condemned as immoral." How could such a statement not be caught by the recklessness test, given that the person saying it must perceive that their comments are at least likely to stir up religious hatred?

Paul Goggins: I make the point to my hon. and learned Friend that the precise context in which those words are uttered is the key determinant of whether or not an offence would be committed. Clearly, the same words may be used by different people in different contexts. In one case they may amount to an offence being committed, whereas in another they do not.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gerald Howarth: When Sir Iqbal Sacranie said on Radio 4, out of a deeply held conviction, that it was his view that homosexuality was harmful, was he being reckless?

Paul Goggins: He was giving his own honest view, based on his religious belief. He would certainly not have committed an offence in the context in which he said it and the manner in which he said it, because his intention—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, if hon. Members want to intervene, perhaps they will at least listen to my response. In the context in which Sir Iqbal Sacranie made the remark, he certainly did not intend to stir up religious hatred. However, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) points to something which I know is of concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House and elsewhere—that is, the way in which these matters are reported and investigated. One extremely important outcome of the Bill once it is enacted will be the drafting of the guidance for the police in their investigation of the offence, and so on.

Angela Watkinson: The Christian Institute has written that a senior Home Office official in a telephone call to the institute yesterday
	"readily admitted that the 'free speech' clause in the Government's amendment 'has no legal effect'. That is because the proviso at the end of Clause 29K(1) is entirely circular. In practice it means: 'You have not committed an offence unless you have committed an offence'."
	Would the Minister care to comment on that view?

Paul Goggins: The point of putting the freedom of expression amendment into the Bill is this: I have always argued that the Bill as originally drafted would not have caught the comedians, the serious commentators or the people who engage in vibrant debate and discussion about religion, but hon. Members on both sides, including some of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) was foremost among them—said that it was not enough to have the word of a Minister on the Floor of the House and his interpretation of these matters. So we make it clear on the face of the Bill that freedom of expression is permitted and will continue, as it should in a free and open society.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister. He is being very generous. The difficulty that many of us have had throughout the passage of the Bill is that whatever sane and sensible comments may be made from the Dispatch Box by a Minister, and whatever sane and sensible decision may be taken by the Attorney-General in bringing a prosecution or by a court in interpreting the facts before a trial, there will be complaints, which will be investigated by the police. The Minister says that he will give guidance to the police, and I am sure he will. The problem is that that may well be the sort of guidance that has allowed over 35,000 people to be stopped and searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, with only 455 arrests. Such guidance will give no comfort to people who may be affected by the Bill.

Paul Goggins: I have made the commitment, and I regard it as a personal responsibility to make sure that once the Bill is enacted, the way that the guidance is drafted—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is being generous in giving way, but there is little point in hon. Members intervening if they do not listen to the answer when the Minister is responding. The Minister ought to be given time to complete one intervention before he tries to answer another.

Paul Goggins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will take one further intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher), once I have answered the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I regard it as a personal responsibility to make sure that once the Bill is enacted, the guidelines aredrawn up properly in consultation with outside organisations, including faith organisations, and those who have mounted the most massive campaign against the Bill. I have no problem with that. I want to engage with them as we draw up the guidance, so that we get it absolutely right and ensure confidence in the way that the Bill will be policed. I shall take one further intervention and then I shall press on.

Mark Fisher: Will the Minister return to what he was saying about the word, "guidance"? Nobody doubts his personal good intentions in what he says from the Dispatch Box, but we cannot legislate on the basis of guidance that may or may not appear. We are passing laws that will criminalise people by giving them a seven-year sentence. We cannot accept that guidance will get us out of a hole that we are liable to dig for ourselves.

Paul Goggins: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend. Of course we would want guidance to be available as soon as possible within the process. However, given that we are debating Lords amendments, Government amendments and other amendments, it is not yet clear what legislation will ultimately be enacted. How could we publish guidance about legislation that is not yet determined? As part of the commitment that I have made, I would of course be as open as possible with the House in the way that the guidance is drawn up and involve people as far as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Paul Goggins: I am going to make some further headway. It is important that I do so to give other hon. Members ample opportunity to contribute to the debate.
	I should make it clear that actual evidence that hatred had been stirred up is not required for the offence to be made out. That is reflected in section 27(2A) in part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 29L(3) in new part 3A. I note that Opposition Members have tabled an amendment that would remove that provision from our proposed wording. However, it seems self-evident, given that the offences that we propose are based on intent or recklessness, that the consequence of such activity does not have to be realised for the offence to be committed. It would be nonsensical if one had to produce someone in court who said that they had been stirred up to hatred in order for the offence to be proved.
	I come now to the area that has probably been the source of most concern, which in view of all the comments that have been made means that we could be in for an interesting few minutes—the whole issue of freedom of expression. I stand by the reassurances that I have previously given to the House. I still believe that the Bill as originally drafted would not have prevented anyone from telling jokes, preaching and teaching or engaging in robust discussion about religion or belief. However, I promised, particularly in response to my   hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and others, that if suitable wording could be found I would be in favour of a clear statement in the Bill. Proposed section 29K of new part 3A contains such a statement and makes it clear that discussion, debate, criticism, expression of antipathy, abuse, insult, ridicule or attempts to convert people from one faith to another will not be covered by the Bill unless the requirements of the offences as regards intent or recklessness are satisfied. It also makes it crystal clear—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Paul Goggins: If I can just finish this point, I will gladly take further interventions.
	It also makes it crystal clear that the offences are concerned with the stirring up of hatred against people, not religious belief itself. We believe that that provides the reassurance that many have been seeking. Indeed, Lord Lester, speaking about the way forward proposed by the Government during Third Reading in the other place, said that this form of declaratory statement would be
	"a unique addition to the criminal code".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2006; Vol. 677, c. 1075.]

Julian Brazier: The Under-Secretary has been generous in giving way. I want to ask specifically about conversion to another faith. I have several good Islamic friends, and one must understand that attempts to convert anybody from Islam to another faith are deeply offensive to Muslims. Were I or any other Christian to attempt to convert someone, we would commit an offence that is punishable under, for example, all four branches of the Sunni sharia, by death in the case of a male apostate. It is a serious offence if someone in an Islamic country tries to convert somebody from Islam. It is also a serious offence for Islamic people to stand by and listen to someone trying to convert another from Islam. How can that possibly not fulfil the Under-Secretary's criteria?

Paul Goggins: I understand that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about those matters—he has expressed those opinions previously. I emphasise that people may use offensive language that may make others feel offended, but if they do not intend to stir up hatred and they are not reckless about their behaviour and words, no offence is committed. We are making it clear on the face of the Bill that robust expression, including an attempt to convert people to another faith, will be permitted.

Gordon Prentice: My Friend is reintroducing the concept of insulting and abusive behaviour. I refer him to press stories about the huge controversy that is raging in Denmark, where cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed have been published in a newspaper. I shall give him two examples and I want him to tell me whether the cartoons would be banned under the Bill. The first depicts Mohammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban and the second has him telling dead suicide bombers that he has run out of virgins with which to reward them. Would those cartoons be caught by the measure?

Paul Goggins: The straightforward answer is that, if there was an intention to stir up hatred—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] It is the factual answer to the question. If there was an intention to stir up hatred or someone was reckless about the impact of their behaviour—

Dominic Grieve: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Paul Goggins: I shall not give way until I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) as full an answer as possible. The measure relates to the intention or the reckless behaviour of an individual.
	Someone who was intent on stirring up hatred could use a quotation from the Koran or the Bible. In that case, the words could be caught. However, if they were used as an expression of faith or as part of a debate about faith, they would not.

Edward Leigh: No one doubts the Under-Secretary's good intentions. However, does he realise that, notwithstanding the Bill's legal language, ordinary religious people might be inhibited from engaging in traditional religious disputation for fear of being caught in the Bill's ambit? That is a genuine danger.

Paul Goggins: I do not believe that they should or would be caught. However, I accept that I have a responsibility, in drawing up the guidance for the way in which the measure is to be enacted, to ensure that people have confidence and know what they can and cannot do. The ordinary practice of religion, even in an outward-going manner and using vivid language, should be permitted.

Julian Lewis: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman always participates in such debates and I shall therefore give way to him.

Julian Lewis: Is it not obvious, from the Under-Secretary's difficulties on the "Today" programme this morning and in the House this afternoon, that specific examples cause him immense difficulty in explaining how the Bill would catch any case that should be caught but is not covered by existing legislation? Why is the Bill being introduced? Is it because the Government would have liked several cases to be brought to court but that could not happen? If so, how many such cases have there been? If the number is significant, why does the Under-Secretary find it so difficult to give examples that people find acceptable?

Paul Goggins: Over a period of time, we have received representations from the police and religious leaders that we take seriously. I emphasise that current legislation on incitement to religious hatred protects Jews and Sikhs. We have always sought to ensure that there is parity in the law so those who follow other faiths—including Christians, Hindus, Muslims and people of no faith at all—are also covered.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Paul Goggins: I shall take one further intervention—

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Paul Goggins: In a moment. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), then I want to make some progress. However, I shall certainly give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) before the end of my speech.

Nick Palmer: The Conservatives need to decide whether the proposals would have no effect at all, or whether they would affect a vast number of people. They cannot have it both ways. I offer the House the example—I have known several concrete examples such as this—of a person who says, "All Muslims are, by definition, terrorists." Such statements have led the organisation Christian Voice to urge that British-born Muslims should be encouraged to leave the country, which is a policy adopted only by the British National party. Does my hon. Friend not agree that people of any faith in Britain deserve protection from this kind of mass abuse?

Paul Goggins: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend that people of all faiths and none should have equal protection under the law, and that is what we are seeking to provide.
	An amendment has been tabled that would remove intent and recklessness from the freedom of expression clause. That would create a dangerous loophole that could, for example, allow someone to use abusive words about religious practices with the intention of stirring up hatred against people, without being caught by the legislation. We want to make it clear that, in a free and open society, robust discussion and debate must be allowed, but no one should be able to escape prosecution if they intend to stir up hatred against people.

Stewart Hosie: Will the Minister give way?

Paul Goggins: Possibly in a moment. I want to make some further progress.
	I shall turn to the issue of "threatening, abusive and insulting". The Government have made it clear throughout that to have only "threatening" as the threshold for the offence would not capture the type of behaviour that we are seeking to outlaw. We have of course taken a serious look at our position on this issue, particularly in the light of the deep concerns expressed in the other place. However, our clear conclusion is that nothing less than the reinstatement of "abusive and insulting" will make the offence viable.
	The racial offence has contained the words "threatening, abusive and insulting" for 20 years without creating any difficulty of interpretation. It is, for instance, an offence to use abusive and insulting words or behaviour to stir up hatred against Sikhs, and it would simply not be right for there to be a lower level of protection for Muslims, Christians and members of other faith groups.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister give way?

Paul Goggins: I shall give way shortly, but I want to make progress on this point. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that he will have an opportunity to intervene on me before I finish.
	Lord Lester made it clear in his speech on Third Reading in the other place that reinstating "abusive and insulting" would ensure that the offence was compatible with other public order legislation. The term "threatening, abusive and insulting" is an established legal concept that the courts are more than familiar with interpreting. To exclude any element of it would leave the courts unclear about Parliament's intentions. What is more, the words "abusive and insulting" are included in the freedom of expression clause relating to religion and religious practices. We have therefore made it clear that the terms used in relation to the offence relate to the stirring up of hatred against people, not against belief.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he has been extremely generous. He will know that I am a devotee of parliamentary scrutiny, and, like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher), I am very concerned about the promise of guidance, which the House will not have the opportunity to scrutinise, being produced later, in contrast to provisions in the Bill or in secondary legislation that we could scrutinise before the Bill's passage. Given that there is no question of a requirement for great investigation, research or analysis, will the Minister tell the House what he will learn later to enable him and his officials to produce the guidance after the passage of the Bill that he cannot furnish us with now?

Paul Goggins: The answer is that we cannot furnish the guidance until we have the legislation. That is a simple point, and one that I have pursued as a Back Bencher and as a Minister. It is impossible to produce guidance until the legislation is in place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Paul Goggins: I promised the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that he could come back at least once more. If he wishes, I shall give way.

Dominic Grieve: May I take the Minister back to the question involving "insulting"? He says—I think it is the Government's position—that "insulting" will not matter because there has to be an intention to stir up hatred against the person on the basis of religion, but how will we distinguish the insult, which might be made recklessly against the individual practitioner, when someone is seeking legitimately to incite hatred against the religious practice? That is the central issue that the Government must grapple with. I have to tell the Minister that, at the moment, he seems completely to have failed to do that.

Paul Goggins: Again, the hon. Gentleman will have his own opinions, but the concept of "threatening, abusive and insulting" is understood and interpreted by the courts. It would be bizarre in the extreme if for this offence, and this offence only, we referred only to threatening behaviour and did not use the words "abusive and insulting". What would the courts make of that in relation to this legislation and, I might say, all other public order legislation?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Paul Goggins: I shall give way the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and then to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson).

Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for giving way again. He keeps referring to the guidance as a reassurance to the House, but Ministers come and go, and guidance can change within the constraints of what Parliament has set down in legislation. Does he understand that the concern here in the House is to ensure that the legislation is as tightly drawn as possible so that no guidance can lead to people being self-censored or restricted in how they can make their comments?

Paul Goggins: I return to a comment made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he introduced the Bill on Second Reading. He remarked then that the legislation is narrowly focused. I would argue that, as we consider the amendments, we have a Bill that is still more narrowly focused. I am on record as saying on several occasions this afternoon that I regard it as a personal responsibility to ensure that the guidance reflects the legislation that we pass. There is a wider issue of public confidence, and it is important that we retain the public confidence in relation to this legislation as we move forward.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Paul Goggins: It is impossible to take interventions from all those who want to intervene. I give way to the hon. Member for Upper Bann.

David Simpson: I thank the Minister for giving way. When the BBC broadcast the scandalous and disgusting "Jerry Springer The Opera", Christians right across the United Kingdom were understandably and obviously outraged. If there ever was a repeat of such a production, would the legislation cover it with respect to the offence given to evangelical Christians?

Paul Goggins: No, this offence would not be relevant to the particular instance that the hon. Gentleman cites. The Jerry Springer example would not be covered by the legislation. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Well, it is a rather interesting dichotomy that Opposition Members pose for us. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham).

Andy Reed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is being generous in giving way to Members on both sides of the House. I have expressed in discussions with him concerns over some of the wording and I accept some things that he has been taking forward today. In particular, he has just specifically referred to the fact that existing legislation extends to Sikhs and Jews. What assessment has he made of some criticism of this Bill in relation to the impact that wording such as much of that to which he has just referred has had on those communities and the potential for people to discuss things freely?
	As a Christian, I would like to criticise other religions and I believe that the Bill will not prevent me from doing so. Has the Minister made any assessment over the period in which that legislation has been in place of the removal of freedom to discuss those religions? Specifically, what assessment follows for the other religions that will be included here—for example, the Christian and Muslim faiths?

Paul Goggins: The assessment from both the Jewish community and the Sikh community is that the incitement to racial hatred legislation has been beneficial. That gives us confidence to extend that cover to people of all faiths and none.

John Denham: While the guidance is important in terms of avoiding frivolous complaints and pointless investigations, the Minister does need to rely on it to support the Bill. Is it not the case that every single piece of legislation enacted by this Parliament to deal with issues relating to discrimination and incitement to hatred has confronted entirely the same debate that we are hearing this afternoon? We will have to rely on the judgment of the court and the common sense of the jury in listening to the evidence and reaching a conclusion. He is right in pursuing the legislation, as we can rely on the legislation drafted and the common sense of the courts to distinguish between those matters that should not be pursued and those that should.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his encouragement in this regard.

Stewart Hosie: Can I bring the Minister back to the issue of recklessness and the Danish cartoons? Should the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed or similar be deemed to be abusive or threatening and their publication reckless, would a warrant for the arrest of the publisher be issued if they were published in a Scottish newspaper distributed in England? If so—this is a very serious question—why do the Government's amendments not include the Lords amendment that would allow a search warrant to be issued in Scotland to search for publications that would be placed in the court thereafter?

Paul Goggins: The legislation that we are discussing does not apply to Scotland, and several amendments have had to be made because of that technical issue. Members on both sides of the House have posed various scenarios in the course of this debate and others. Ultimately, it will not be for a Minister to interpret whether, in specific circumstances, an offence has been committed. It will be for the police to investigate and for the Crown Prosecution Service to consider the evidence, and reference will be made to the Attorney-General to consider whether a prosecution can take place.
	The amendments contain some minor consequential changes.

Quentin Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Paul Goggins: No, not at the moment.
	We are also seeking to amend the likely limb of the racial hatred offence along the lines originally proposed in the Bill. Given that the provision was only ever intended to make clear that it must be likely rather than proven that material is likely to be seen by someone in whom hatred is likely to be stirred up, and that it is now restricted to the racial offence only, I hope that Members on both sides of the House will accept the proposition.
	The Government have made an honest attempt to find common ground with those who have been critical of us. The amendments provide reassurance and the means to introduce a measure that would be one more weapon in the armoury against those extremists who peddle hatred. I commend them to the House.

Dominic Grieve: The Bill has had a long passage through Parliament and, in its later stages, after the Lords substantially amended it, the Government made a genuine attempt to see whether a compromise could be achieved. I would not wish this moment to pass without putting on record my thanks to the Home Secretary and the Minister for the spirit in which those discussions took place. They were constructive, and a credit to all the parties who participated, but ultimately that compromise has proved elusive.
	The reason for that is that the Government appear to have got themselves off to a completely wrong start. Through their decision, which was due, I think, to the pressure of various interest groups, to offer an identical Bill in relation to incitement to religious hatred as in relation to incitement to racial hatred, they got completely tangled up, because, in fact, the two issues are entirely different. Race is immutable in its characteristics. Religion, however, is a matter of belief in exactly the same way as politics and political views. The attempt to run the two together is the main reason why the Government got themselves into such a mess.
	The House of Lords made a valiant effort to get the Government out of their mess. The Bill that it returned to us might contain some small details that could do with attention—the Minister mentioned the extent to which it might apply to Scotland: he does not want that—but its architecture is probably the best that could be on offer. Its key components reduce the offence to a narrow scope and concentrate on the issue of threatening behaviour, which I suspect every Member would agree is unacceptable in any discourse. The trouble is that the Government seek to reverse that. They have told the House that they are paying attention to what the House of Lords has done, but the end product of the Government's amendments is jolly close to the original Bill.

Nick Palmer: The hon. Gentleman has attempted to make a distinction between incitement to hatred on racial grounds and incitement to hatred on religious grounds, saying that we cannot change our race but we can change our religion. Does he not accept that in our society it is unreasonable that people should be so afraid that they feel the need to change their religion in order to escape the hatred incited against them? Are they not entitled to the same protection that they receive on the basis of their racial group?

Dominic Grieve: I do not think that there are people in this country who feel obliged to change their religion because of fear. The problem that we face in this country is that we are on a cusp in relation to the question of religious tolerance and tolerance of plurality and diversity. The decisions that we make this evening will be of great importance over the next decade, influencing the direction in which we proceed.

Mark Fisher: While the hon. Gentleman is advising the Government on various approaches that might have resolved some of the problems, may I ask his opinion about a totally different approach? A level playing field could be created by abolition of the law of blasphemy. Civil law can be relied on to deal with such matters as public order and race; we have robust laws in many other contexts. Would we not have secured a much more straightforward position by abolishing the blasphemy law, and avoided many of the difficult issues that we are discussing now?

Dominic Grieve: The law of blasphemy is entirely obsolete. I voted for its removal when the opportunity presented itself to the House. I regret that we were not allowed to consider it in the context of this Bill, but we were told that that would be procedurally impossible. I should have been much happier if the Bill had included a repeal of that law.

Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend accept the general proposition that the Bill creates problems that it should be seeking to address? It sets faith against faith, or at least has the potential to do so. It will give weapons to people who wish to attack Christianity, which—whether Labour Members like it or not—is still the established religion of this country.

Dominic Grieve: I think that the problem with the Bill is that it will give a weapon to every malevolent who wishes to browbeat other groups that might criticise him. Many people would disagree with the remarks made by Sir Iqbal Sacranie, but they were clearly honestly made and part of his belief. His fate in the past few weeks—the fact that he was left in a position of uncertainty for several days while police investigated his remarks—is, I am afraid, something of which we shall see a great deal when the Bill is on the statute book. The Bill will be a weapon in the hands of every extremist group, whether religious or secular, with which to browbeat its opponents. I must tell the Minister that I do not believe that any amount of guidance will cure that problem.

Edward Leigh: One of the reasons why Sir Iqbal Sacranie is so much in favour of the Bill is, no doubt, the letter that the Home Secretary sent to mosques at the time of the general election. It said that he merely wanted to give Muslims the protection enjoyed by Jews and Sikhs. I understand that right-thinking Muslims are concerned, but that is a complete misreading of existing legislation. The fact is that Jews and Sikhs are protected only by racial laws: there is no protection for the religions of Judaism and Sikhism.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is right. I fear that many were misled about the impact of the Bill. I have received no representations from the Bill's supporters asking us to adopt a particular position. As the debate has progressed, an increasing awareness may have crept in that the Bill does not deliver what people expected, even those who supported it, and that, on top of that, as Sir Iqbal Sacranie has found in recent weeks, it has unintended consequences that may be rather unpleasant for those who hold religious beliefs.

Mark Pritchard: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is concern that some politically correct chief police officers may be malevolent? It may be not religious groups but some chief police officers who seek out cases just to tick a new box.

Dominic Grieve: One of the problems that I have discovered during my time in the House is that the moment one orthodoxy disappears, a new orthodoxy starts to rear its head. I have no doubt from incidents that I have seen in my own constituency, that I have heard about and that I have been written to about, that there is a danger of a new orthodoxy creeping in that prevents people from freely expressing their beliefs because the public good in some way requires it. Just as 150 years ago it was impossible to express one's beliefs on certain matters—certainly before the Catholic emancipation—so we are suddenly moving, after what may turn out, if we are not careful, to be a very brief window of true freedom, into a new orthodoxy. That worries me very much.

Gordon Prentice: Hon. Members have mentioned Sir Iqbal Sacranie. In 1988, he said, following "The Satanic Verses" affair, that
	"death was perhaps too easy"
	for Salman Rushdie. Should Sir Iqbal Sacranie be slapped down for such statements?

Dominic Grieve: I suspect that Sir Iqbal was trying to be helpful in view of the fact that some people were calling for the death of Salman Rushdie, but it highlights the need for the House to send the clearest possible message that freedom of speech must be tolerated, that everyone in this country must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, and that that is something we must put up with. The criminal law should prevent people from carrying out and inciting criminal acts, but it should not start to fetter the way in which people express their beliefs. That is the view that I take. I hope that hon. Members share my view, in which case they will support the line of the Opposition in the Lobby.

Kitty Ussher: The hon. Gentleman speaks of freedom of speech. Does he think that extremist organisations such as those that operate in my constituency of Burnley, which he visited during the election campaign, should have the right to say that Muslim groups should be attacked because of their religion, not because of their race?

Dominic Grieve: Not at all, and we do not require this Bill to protect those groups.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is making an excellent defence of our right to free speech. Is he, like me, receiving a lot of letters and e-mails from law-abiding, mild-mannered Christians in his constituency who are genuinely afraid that the Bill is out to get them and will restrict their right to speak up for their faith and normal worship? The Minister is stirring up a problem where there was not one.

Dominic Grieve: Many people are worried, and the Bill's opaque nature is one of the things that worry them most. I will come on to that in a moment, but the fact that the Minister has to say that he will issue guidance highlights the fact that this is catch-all legislation. He is saying, "You need not worry too much about that because the Attorney-General and the prosecutors will ensure that only those cases that need prosecuting are prosecuted." However, that leads to a terrible chilling factor among those who wish to express their opinions, whether it be comedians who do not know the limit to which they can go, or those who wish to preach their own beliefs and at the same time, inevitably, to criticise the beliefs of others. They do not know at what point their actions can translate into the reckless insult of another, at which point they will be prosecuted and condemned. That is the nub of the matter.

James Brokenshire: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are some parallels with the compensation culture? Vagueness and uncertainty are forcing people into behaviour that is completely mad when it is considered objectively. The Bill is uncertain. Does he agree that the fear of prosecution is likely to lead people into behaving absurdly?

Dominic Grieve: I have no doubt that there will be absurd consequences. For example, I have no doubt that those who really do wish to stir up hatred will make speeches in which, although they use horrific language to criticise the beliefs and practices of other faiths, their every fifth phrase will be, "But of course I exempt the practitioners." That will have exactly the same corrosive impact. It will cause exactly the same damage but they will be able to say, "I am completely in the clear." Therefore, the mischief cuts in every direction. Far from bringing about the quietening of discourse, which is what I think the Minister intends, that will be exploited in every possible way. One will find that it will be the innocent who will fall foul of the law and will be left most defenceless.

Anne Main: Can my hon. Friend give me an example of a single faith that does not have any practitioners? He said that people would say that they exempt practitioners. I cannot imagine how they could do so because practitioners and faith go together—one cannot criticise one without criticising the other.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is right. The problem is that all beliefs have their adherents, unless the belief is dead and wrong. In those circumstances, attacking the belief must undermine the status of the adherent. That is the Bill's most fundamental flaw.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dominic Grieve: I am conscious that I must get on. I apologise to hon. Members, but I give way for the last time to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

David Winnick: I accept entirely that the hon. Gentleman has a genuine commitment to civil liberties and that he argues with complete sincerity, but does he accept that Labour Members who support the measure have no less a commitment to free speech, and that we were warned constantly that, if we passed race relations measures to ban racial discrimination, we would undermine the honourable tradition of free speech in this country? The critics were proved wrong. We are no less a free country than we were before those laws were passed. We may be making a mistake today. I accept that that is a possibility but the warnings that he and his colleagues are expressing may prove no more right than those of Conservative Members so many years ago.

Dominic Grieve: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is sincere. I am sure that the Government are sincere in their intentions. I believe sincerely that the Government and the hon. Gentleman are profoundly mistaken in their analysis of the way in which the Bill will work. As I said earlier, part of the reason is the failure to carry out a rigorous exercise to separate race and religion. The fact that those two things have been conflated is at the heart of the Government's misunderstanding of the issue. Politics and religion are much closer than religion and race, and no one in the House would argue that we should have a Bill of this kind to protect people's political views, although, having said that, that might be tempting providence.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dominic Grieve: May I move on as other hon. Members want to speak in the debate?
	I turn to the matters that have been raised by the Minister. He sought to provide reassurance that new paragraph 29K will provide a crucial protection to debate in respect of freedom of expression. I disagree. First, the Lords amended the Bill to protect freedom of speech. I think that their version is better than what the Government propose, as it makes specific reference to "adherents". Interestingly, the Government chose not to include that in their amendments but, that apart, there is not a great deal between the two versions.
	However, paragraph 29K(2) of the Government's proposed new schedule—the "avoidance of doubt" provision—is a different matter. I am aware of its origin, and I am sure that Lord Lester had good intentions, but the more I read it the more I am convinced that it is not the worth the paper it is written on. It is an entirely circular argument, whose consequence may be that almost every prosecution will spiral down into oblivion. However, it will not prevent the police from knocking on people's doors and saying, "You'd better be careful. We heard what you had to say in your preaching hall last week and we didn't like it."
	It is obvious that people who indulge in
	"criticising, expressing antipathy towards, abusing, insulting or ridiculing . . . any religion, religious belief or religious practice"
	will lay themselves open to the charge that they intend to stir up religious hatred against individuals. The Government place great emphasis on that distinction, but I do not think that it is one that, logically, can be made.

Iain Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the use of the word "reckless" ignores the fact that almost every religion, with the possible exception of Judaism, is proselytising by nature? Therefore, are not missionaries and others who set out to persuade people about their faith in one sense reckless, as they often disregard the consequences of what they are doing because their faith is so great? Will not that cause the police and others to bully them and lean on them to make them stop proselytising, with the result that there will be great division in society?

Dominic Grieve: There is no doubt that people who preach Islam, the gospels or any other faith embark on a process of confronting people who may be unconvinced. In some cases, they encounter physical or verbal abuse, and the process can be vigorous and cause disturbance. The criminal law exists to keep that disturbance within reasonable bounds. I accept that we need those laws, but the Government want to go further and to produce what is in effect a straitjacket for such encounters. In my view, that is wholly misplaced.

William McCrea: Many people believe that the Bill will lead to the persecution of people who preach the simple gospel of Jesus Christ. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House is right to rein in this Administration in that respect?

Dominic Grieve: My fear is that the Bill will cause people of all faiths—and none—increasingly to be constrained in their ability to follow their consciences, even though they live within the criminal law. That is the mischief in the Bill, and it applies to every religion, and to none.

Lembit �pik: I grew up in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the consequence of the Bill could be the exact antithesis of what the Government intend? Debates between people of different religions can often be robust and offensive, but they can also produce the sort of accord that is leading to a more peaceful and settled environment in Northern Ireland. If the Bill goes through, there is a good chance that it will cause division between religions, rather than encouraging the environment for debate that can settle differences.

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely. That is the nub of the problem.

Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend consider a slightly different angle on the problems that the Bill is likely to create? If a group of people following a particular form of undesirable activity set themselves up as a cult or religion, could they not use the Bill to claim protection from criticism? It is gradually dawning on moderate Muslims just how restrictive the Bill could be. For instance, a group or people with bizarre sexual preferences might say that those practices were part of their religion. [Hon. Members: Like the Liberal Democrats.] I was not referring to the Liberal Democrats. Could someone criticise that group of people without falling into the trap that the Government are blunderingly setting out for the House?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Earlier in the Bill's passage through the House, we debated the real possibility that people of extreme political views could claim that their views were part of their articles of faith. In that event, they could use that to prevent criticism of their beliefs. I am aware that the definition of religion can be brought before a court, but religions can be created quite easily. They are not confined to the principal, monotheistic faiths.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that only rarely do I allow my faith into the realm of politics. I am a Christian, and I would be very worried if I believed that the Bill would restrict my right, or the right of other Christians, freely to espouse our belief system. However, I accept that there have to be restrictions on how far I go in expressing my views. I trust the judiciary to make sensible and correct decisions about any statements that I might make. That is what they have done with legislation on sexism and racism. Would the hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer, put his faith in the judiciary to make those correct and sensible decisions?

Dominic Grieve: The starting point is the quality of the legislation that we enact. Unfortunately, the Bill is of very poor quality. It is uncertain in scope, it requires guidance to define it, and its
	Savings for discussion, debate and criticism
	come very close to gobbledegook, as we have discussed. The meaning of those provisions will be argued endlessly in court. Lawyers will have a field day with them, and make a lot of money out of themas they usually do when bad legislation is enacted.
	My view is that the Bill is unnecessary. The Lords have done their best to make it as good as it can be and, although I recognise that the Government want to have the Bill on the statute book, we should stick with what the Lords have done.
	In conclusion, I turn to the provisions concerning the savings for discussion and debate. The Government insist that it is somehow possible to split belief and believer. As I said earlier, that is not practical, and I shall read a short excerpt from a letter written by Rowan Atkinson in December. He put the matter so tellingly that I cannot improve on it. He wrote:
	As you may know, I have always been sceptical of the benefits of separating the concepts of beliefs and believers in that I have never believed that you can attack one without attacking the other . . . One should try to look at it from a comedian's or dramatist's point of view. A comedian is unlikely to attack a religion by pure reference to religious practices or beliefs: he is going to attack it by reference to the people who believe or follow those practices. All jokes and drama have to characterise a situation in human form. Knowing that there is a law that states that it is a crime to threaten, abuse or insult a group of people defined by their religion remains, I am afraid to say, very intimidating.
	That is the simple truth of how the Bill will be constructed if the Government amendments are accepted. It is intimidating. What is permissible, and what is not, is completely unclear. Most people get to know about beliefs or practices that they may not like or approve of through the medium of other people who practise them. To those who believe that the Government's proposals will constitute a safeguard in that respect, I say simply that they really are not worth the paper that they are written on. I accept that the Bill is well intentioned, but it is not in any way capable of providing protection.

Evan Harris: We have heard much concern from people of religion, but those on the left, as it were, also have a concern. If I say, as I might well do outside this House, that we should hate Christian fundamentalist homophobic bigotscontentious, but I should be allowed to say itit is clearly intended to stir up hatred against people on the basis of their religious beliefs, and I would be prosecuted. Even if I restricted my remarks to bigotry, which I should not have to do, I would be reckless as to whether other people might blame the bigots for the bigotry, as we blame Nazis for Nazism or communists for communism. The worry is that fair, free speech would be caught under the Bill, and the Minister has never given me any reassurance on that point.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right. I hope that I made it clear earlier that this is not just about protecting people with religious beliefs but people with all beliefs. They are entitled to their say. Those of us who have beliefslike the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), I am a Christian and a practising member of the Church of Englandjust have to lump it when people say things that we find offensive. We have grown used to doing so in the period of greater tolerance that developed in the last century, and it worries me that the Government are asking us to take a step backwards on the issue, instead of saying, Those are our values, and people who live in this country have jolly well got to subscribe to them. Without that, we will move towards the dominance of whichever group makes the loudest noise, is the most insistent and threatens other peoplein subtle waysthe most. That is profoundly undesirable.
	My next issue is what constitutes abusive and insulting. We have touched on the issue already, so I may not need to say too much about it. The fact is that abusive and insulting words and behaviour are different from threatening words and behaviour. If the word insulting is put back in the Bill, even remarks that to an ordinary person might appear innocuous but are deeply wounding to a person with a particular religion or belief would be caught. A person could engage in a moderate discourse that nevertheless caused great insultthe examples given earlier included calling into question the divinity of Christ or calling into question whether the Prophet Mohammed's revelations were divinely inspired. Another example is the play Beshti, which was profoundly insulting to Sikhs. It was insulting in its concepts and its implications about the behaviour of priests and elders in gurdwaras, and it is that sort of play that would, logically, be caught by this legislation, even if the Minister thinks that any guidelines that might be enacted would provide protection. Beshti is a classic example and that is why the House should not allow the words abusive and insulting back into the Bill. By keeping the word threatening, we latch on to the very things that were identified by the Minister, such as the Norwood case and the poster with the twin towers that said Muslims out of Britain. That is threatening. The examples that the Minister gave of people attacking women wearing the hijab or calling for people to be thrown out are threatening and would not require the words abusive and insulting to be added.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman suggests that Beshti is a classic example of the sort of play that would be caught under the legislation. However, the existing law against incitement to racial hatred applies to the Sikh faith, so why were the producers of the play not prosecuted? Does not that provide the reassurance that future plays about the Islamic faith would also not be caught under the Bill?

Dominic Grieve: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. The racial hatred laws do not exist to protect the beliefs, but to protect the racial and ethnic identity of the believer. Hypothetically, Beshti could have come under the existing racial hatred laws, but in practical terms it would never have done so. Once we introduce religion into the matter, it is entirely possible that it would do so.

Philip Davies: The Government intend that the Bill will not restrict free speech and will deter extremists. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will follow the same route as every piece of political correctness? Ordinary, decent people will be afraid to speak their minds for fear of breaking the law. Resentment will build up and drive them into the hands of the extremistsnasty groups such as the BNPbecause they feel that they have no other way of expressing their reasonable views. People will be encouraged towards the extremists, not deterred from them.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with my hon. Friend that a far better weapon for those of us who wish to see moderation in discourse is ridicule of those who do not, because ridicule is a very powerful weapon. Societal pressure on people to behave in ways that are not offensive to others is a much better course than trying to impose criminal sanctions on people. From that point of view, my hon. Friend is right. There is a danger that some people will become martyrs and resentment will build up, which are entirely undesirable.

Mark Pritchard: Does not the Bill create a new danger that people of a certain religious faith will sit in judgment as jurors over those from another religious faith in a situation in which the former's religious faith might call on them to put religious law before the law of the land? Would not that create chaos in the courts?

Dominic Grieve: I do not agree with my hon. Friend on that point. I hope that the legal system is sufficiently robust to deal with such attacks. However, there are clear signs, as we see around Europe, that groupsand not just Muslimsare seeking to invoke special privileges and rights, or demanding consideration and requiring other people to accept that. It isand I can put it no other waya growing fad. Therefore, it is all the more desirable that the House should restate clearly that that is not the way that we believe society should be conducted. If we made special concessions to various groups, it would not facilitate the exchange of ideas that underpins a multi-faith and multicultural society, but would reinforce difference and create the ghettos of the mind that are so inimical to our making sensible progress.

Iris Robinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Christianity has become a target even before this legislation is enacted? For example, we are not allowed to put Christ on Christmas cards, because they should say Season's Greetings and we are not allowed to have nativity plays because other faiths might be offended.

Dominic Grieve: As I said earlier, there is a tendency towards a new orthodoxy abroad, but the example the hon. Lady gives would not be the result of this Bill, whatever form it finally takes. I would prefer to keep my remarks on the subject of the Bill.
	The issue of recklessness has been touched on and, indeed, it merges into the other two. The Government had a likely limb that went much too far, and they have made a concession by withdrawing it. However, while there might be some shred of justification in putting in a test of subjective recklessness if the Bill were confined to threatening behaviour, it would be utterly pernicious if the Government managed to add insulting and abusive behaviour. There is no way in which a person who seeks to criticise a faith can be sure that in the process he will not be held to have been reckless as to whether he was invoking hatred for the adherents of that faith. That is one of the fundamental flaws of the Bill and the only way to cure it is to take out recklessness. That leaves an offence of specific intent, which will be amply sufficient in most cases, and I hope that the Government and Members will see clearly that if the offence can be caused by recklessness the climate of uncertainty that will be created will be extremely damaging.

Kitty Ussher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again.
	What is the attitude of the hon. Gentleman's party to the statement made by Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National party, filmed secretly by an undercover journalist and broadcast on national television, that he was advising his supporters to focus on religion rather than race? He made a statement; he was not telling them to go out and do anything. Is not that precisely the type of reckless activity that we are trying to avoid?

Dominic Grieve: I hope that the hon. Lady will accept the fact that I do not intend to comment on a matter that is uniquely sub judice at present. It would not be proper of me to do so. I should be happy, outside the Chamber, to communicate my views to her, but I shall not do so here in any circumstances.

Julian Lewis: Nick Griffin is being prosecuted in any case.

Dominic Grieve: He is indeed and we shall have to wait for the outcome.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of recklessness, will he consider this point? Recklessness is in truth the curse of this legislation and if it were removed most Members would be able to accept the measure. The problem is not that the legislation is unclear, but that it is too blisteringly clear, in that the examples that have been given recentlythe cartoons of the Prophetwould undoubtedly be caught under the recklessness provisions. It could not possibly be argued that those who produced them were not reckless as to the fact that some people were likely to have religious hatred stirred within them. Does not that underline the fact that whereas we have always inhibited our freedom of speech to deal with race and racial matters, for 300 years we have turned our face against protecting faith by legislation because we cannot protect faith without protecting bigotry?

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I add only that it is precisely because we did not provide that protection that our society has been able to evolve as it has, towards something of which everyone in the House can be proud in terms of the maintenance of freedom, moderation and liberty, which are capable of being ruthlessly undermined by the proposals if we get the measure wrong.

Edward Leigh: Could not it be said that the Prophet Mohammed and Jesus Christ were so reckless in the way that they conducted themselves that they would have fallen foul of the legislation?

Dominic Grieve: Indeed. When our Lord drove the moneychangers from the temple he would probably have been arrested under the public order Acts and served with an ASBO, but after that illustration I shall not try to look more closely into such issues. My hon. Friend is right: religious belief has sometimes been promoted in turbulent fashion, which is not to say that we should necessarily allow it to continue too turbulently but we should ensure that our historic traditions of robust discourse are maintained.
	For those reasons, although there will be limited scope to vote, when the time comes we shall vote against the Government's motions to disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 4. We shall invite other Members to join us, and we very much hope that those who have considered and taken part in the debate will realise that we are not trying to cut off the Government's feet; it is simply that they have got it wrong.
	It is for the House to send out a simple message. The Government can have their legislation. They can put it on the statute book in the form that the Lords have wisely altered and it can then go forward, but we should get away from the dead end on which we shall embark if we are not careful.

Frank Dobson: I speak as a declared and unashamed unbeliever. I have argued in this place for the repeal of the ridiculous blasphemy law, which goes far beyond what we are proposing today yet covers only the established Church. I have argued and voted in this place against the extension of religious schools and, where they exist, to require them to take pupils from other faiths and of no faith at all.

David Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Frank Dobson: No, I want to continue so that other Members can speak.
	I was brought up always to respect the religious beliefs, or unbeliefs, of others as part of a tolerant and understanding society. That is why I support what the Minister has been saying, accepting some of the improvements made in the House of Lords but rejecting some of their proposals that would be damaging.
	I do not believe that anyone should be allowed to incite hatred against someone else because of that person's religion, partly because it is wrong in principle, but also because incitement has consequences. Incitement leads to people being abused and assaulted due to their religious belief. When I say that, I am told that if people are abused and assaulted action can be taken against the offenders and they can be prosecuted, but before a prosecution can take place someone has to suffer the spitting, abuse and assault. I want to prevent people from being assaulted and abused.
	I do not believe that anyoneRowan Atkinson or anyone elseneeds the right to incite hatred against someone because of their religion. He has apparently said that we should look at things from the point of view of the comedian. Other people in the world are just as important as comedians. Muslim women who have been assaulted, abused and spat on for wearing the hijab are as important to me as Rowan Atkinson, for all his sense of humour.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Frank Dobson: No.
	I do not believe that anyone's conscience, whatever their religious belief, requires them to attack the religious belief of anyone else. Cannot they be satisfied with their own religion? Furthermore, people of religious belief have the right not to be incited againstif that is a proper piece of English. We have to give people the right to be protected against such incitement. The Government's proposals would make that incitement a crime and there would be two effects: first, reducing incitement would reduce the consequences of incitement, and secondly, and much more important, there would be a clear declaration in law that such incitement is wrong.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was present many years ago when the House passed a law that made incitement to racial hatred an offence. As a consequence, there has been a great reduction in incitement to racial hatred. Loose, abusive and vile language against people of different races has been much reduced, because there was a demonstrable declaratory effect when that incitement was outlawed. To extend that principle to outlaw incitement to hatred of people due to their religious belief would have the same effect and we would have a better society. I see no reason why people who cleave to their religious beliefor people such as me who cleave to none and are proud of itshould be inhibited in saying what we think in promoting our beliefs. But no one needs the rightthe rightto incite hatred against someone else because of their religious belief.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall attempt to emulate the brevity of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), but I am afraid that I would seek to follow little else in his speech. He still seems stuck in the same problem as the one that the Government have been stuck with throughout the proceedings on the Billtrying to create some sort of equivalence between the treatment of people according to their race with that according to their religion. Those are very different aspects and they must be treated very differently.
	I wish to associate myself with the remarks about the Minister made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The debates have often been difficult and emotive, as we have heard today, and I want to place on the record my appreciation of the Minister for the fact that he has been unfailingly courteous to those who have opposed him throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
	The Liberal Democrats invite the House not to agree with the Government's motions to disagree with the other place. The arguments about the Bill in its broadest sense have been well rehearsed, and I do not intend to repeat them. However, by saying that there will not be a huge number of prosecutions under the legislation, the Minister does not bring any great comfort to the House. I seem to recall that the same arguments were advanced with regard to demonstrations in Parliament square, but in excess of 28 people have been arrested on allegations of breaching that legislation merely a few months after it came into force. Such reassurance does not address our concern that there will be a fundamental chilling of the freedom of expression.
	In our view, the Bill is very much improved by the amendments that have been made in the other place, and we very much regret that the Government again seek to change it in two ways. First, they want to expand the state of mind involved from merely making the crime one of intent by including recklessness. That is our most fundamental objection, and I will expand on that later. Secondly, the expansion to include conduct that is covered by abusive or insulting words or behaviour is also exceptionally worrying and very wrong. In fact, we find the combination of both those elements fundamentally obnoxious. If the crime were merely one of intent, I could probably live with the extension to include abusive and insulting behaviour.

Evan Harris: I could not.

Alistair Carmichael: My hon. Friend is something of a purist in these matters, but as a matter of pragmatism, I think that most of us could live with that. However, the extension to include recklessness, along with that to include abusive and insulting words and behaviour, causes me the greatest difficulty.
	We questioned initially the need for the Bill, but I accept that the Government will get it. We have asked the Minister throughout the process what is the demonstrable need for the Bill, but he has never properly answered us. The Government must still justify the need to extend the offences in the way that they propose. What conduct will be caught by the Government's new proposed form of words that is not already caught by the form of words introduced by the Lords?
	The question of recklessness lies at the heart of our debate today. In our submission, it represents a significant lowering of the threshold of what constitutes an offence under the Bill. Of course, recklessness is a well-known legal concept, but it is normally applied to crimes against property or the person, and it is normally quite easy to establish and apply without difficultly because there is usually an element of physical damage or injury. Expanding that concept to a speech offence, such as the one that we are debating, is dangerous in the extreme. To my mind, that gives rise to a number of  questions about the proportionality of the Government's proposals.
	Many hon. Members remained unconvinced that such proposals represent an appropriate way to frame terrorism legislation. Allowing recklessness to become the test in relation to encouraging terrorism under the Terrorism Bill, which the other place is currently considering, is still a matter of some controversy. Those Labour Members who engaged in that debate and had that concern should carefully consider whether it is appropriate to extend the application of recklessness to an offence whose importance must come somewhere further down the hierarchy. If the Government have their way, a citizen can fall foul of the law by being reckless about the consequence of using insulting language, and that is going too far for the Liberal Democrats.
	When I was a law student, I was told by a tutor that a breach of the peace under Scots law was anything that two cops did not quite like the look of, and we are in danger of replicating that attitude in the offence that we are considering today. On other occasions, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has used the example of the producer of a play who is warned by the police that if he proceeds in putting on the production, it is likely that he will incite racial hatred because the language or behaviour used will be insulting or abusive. Given that warning, it is difficult to understand how the producer of that play, if he proceeds, will not fall foul of the recklessness element of the Bill. If we go beyond constituting the offence merely by intent, the chilling effect on the producer in that circumstance is absolute and apparent.

David Burrowes: Let us consider the chilling effect on the streets in, for example, the Green Lanes area of my constituency. Let us say, for example, that while a constituent was reading some words from the Bible or, indeed, the Koran, he was warned by a police officer that he risked offending the people who were listening. Is that not similar to someone who reads aloud without the intention of stirring up religious hatred? Is not that person putting himself within the remit of being reckless? If a listener's complaint is taken further, does he not risk at least being arrested, if not being convicted in court?

Alistair Carmichael: That is absolutely true, and it certainly applies as much to religion as to the example of the theatre producer that I have already offered to the House. Of course, the Government will say that there is the safeguard of the Attorney-General's intervention and so on. Again, that is highly unlikely to be of any great use when someone has been taken to the police station, questioned, arrested and perhaps spent a night in the cells. That is where the real chilling effect will be felt.
	We will never be able to quantify the chilling effect, because the people who do not proceed because they have been warned that they could fall foul of the law will never be recorded anywhere. The people who are prepared to make a stand will become apparent, because they will go through the system and the statistics will be gathered. The real danger is for the people who heed the warnings, and they will be substantial in number.
	Lowering the threshold to include recklessness will be counter-productive. Where little is needed to constitute an offence, one is almost inviting complaints to be made, either inter-faith or intra-faith, by different sects in a religion, one against the other. In that way, the protection of religious freedom that the Government seek to enshrine and encourage will be weakened.
	By trying to frame the Bill in such a way, the Government are putting great reliance on the distinction between the belief and the believer. For example, they want to criminalise attacks on Christians, but not Christianity itself. That is exceptionally unrealistic. I think that most ChristiansI am oneand especially fundamentalist Christians, will perceive an attack on their faith as an attack on themselves. At the very least, they will see that as insulting. Indeed, if the test is to be recklessness, it is difficult to envisage how such an attack could not be covered.
	I wish to say a few words about the free expression rider. I am afraid that I do not draw great comfort from a measure that effectively says that conduct will not be an offence if it is an offence. It is worth reading into the record the terms of the rider that the Government are recommending:
	a person is not guilty of an offence under this Part of being reckless as to whether religious hatred would be stirred up if he is reckless as to whether hatred would be stirred up against a religion, religious belief or religious practice but is not also reckless as to whether hatred would be stirred up against a group of persons defined as mentioned in
	proposed new section 29A of the Public Order Act 1986. The provision is there
	For the avoidance of doubt.
	I now understand why the hon. Member for Beaconsfield was getting excited by the prospect of the litigation that would arise as a consequence of the measure. It might have been proposed for the avoidance of doubt, but as far as lawyers are concerned, it is certainly not for the avoidance of profit.
	The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) asked the Minister about the Bill's impact on Scotland. The Bill will, of course, apply only to England and Wales but, as he observed, it will be have impact on Scotland. I commend to the House an example cited by the Christian Institute. It obtained the opinion of one of Scotland's leading Queen's counsel, Herbert Kerrigan. He says:
	though it is correct to say that the Religious Hatred law will not directly apply to Scotland it is simplistic to say that it will have no effect on Scotland. In practical terms the law will affect Scotland and every institution in Scotland which is in any way involved in writing, publishing or broadcasting will have to obey it even though it is not part of Scots law. The law is being criticised in England because of its 'chilling' effect on religious debate and because it will inevitably lead to 'self censorship' and caution. It will certainly have those effects in Scotland also.

Angus MacNeil: Is it not the that case not only will publishing and broadcasting in Scotland be censored, but broadcasts for the UK that emanate from London could change dramatically over the next few years, which would affect what people in Scotland heard and read?

Alistair Carmichael: Yes. I do not want to over-emphasise the point, but it shows the Bill's lack of cross-border workability. I wonder whether there has been any consultation with the Scottish Executive. Given the Bill's possible chilling effect and the need for propriety in the constitutional settlement, such contact should have been made, at the very least.
	The Minister repeatedly referred to the guidance for the police that he will draft if the Bill is passed. Much as I respect him and have no doubt that he is a man who honours his word, I do not find that reassuring in any way. He offered the House his personal assurance. That is worth something, but I remind him that there is a reshuffle coming. If he were to be moved as part of that reshuffle, his successor need not feel bound by his personal, rather than official, assurance. In any event, Ministers who hold his post in the future might well feel differently about the matter due to different circumstances and a different climate. They could well provide alternative guidance to the police, but such guidance would never have to come to the House for ratification or debate.

Tobias Ellwood: Would not life be a lot simpler if we could consider some form of draft guidance? We could then at least determine the Bill's likely impact if it were ever to become law.

Alistair Carmichael: Such guidance would assist us by giving us a practical idea of what we would be subjecting the citizen to by passing the Bill, but it would be of limited use because guidance is not binding in any way and, as we know, draft guidance can be changed dramatically by the time that it is imposed. Hon. Members will never be given a proper and formal opportunity to debate the guidance.

Evan Harris: Regardless of the guidance, is not the basic problem that the Government have failed to give a single example of something that is happening and needs to be caught by the Bill, but is not caught by existing race hate measures or public order offences? At the same time, we know that the Bill will have a chilling effect on people's ability to criticise religions, not least because of the recklessness provisions. The guidance is immaterial to that problem. The Minister has still not given such an example, although the House has asked for it on three occasions.

Alistair Carmichael: I think that the Minister has been asked substantially more than three times, if we consider the Bill's proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report and Third Reading. The request has been made repeatedly, but it has never been met by the Minister.

Julian Lewis: Is not the reason why the Minister cannot give examples the fact that there are few, if any, examples to give? The Government are caught on the hook because they know the Bill to be bad, but feel that they must go through with it simply because it was offered as an electoral bribe to a part of society.

Alistair Carmichael: There is perhaps some merit in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, although I would hesitate to use the term electoral bribe because I fear that it might be unparliamentary. The Government rather oversold the proposal during the general election. It was suggested to some faith communities that they would be getting the equivalent to Christian blasphemy measures, but clearly the Bill was never intended to be such a thing.

Edward Leigh: I respect the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) greatly, but he was somewhat unfair on the Government, so I must put the record straight. He said that the Government could not cite a single example, but the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), gave me an example. She said that a group in her constituency had been accused of using sex to recruit members and that someone had attacked it on that basis. She told me that the group would have been protected by the Bill. However, surely one should be allowed to attack groupsthey are often such things as cultsthat use sex to recruit members. That shows the problem with the Bill, as was pointed out earlier.

Alistair Carmichael: That sounds like an interesting example, but given recent events, it is not one that I intend to explore on the Floor of the House.

Evan Harris: That is Slough for you.

Alistair Carmichael: I know not of Slough, other than the references to it in Betjeman's poems.
	The choice is clear. We can either accept the Minister's reassurances about guidance to come that will make everything clear, or we can do our jobs as parliamentarians by scrutinising the legislation before us. We cannot do both.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that many hon. Members would like to contribute to the debate. Time is limited, so may I make a plea that contributions be brief?

David Winnick: I will certainly be brief. On Report on 11 July 2005, I said that I supported what the Government intended to do, but had certain reservations. To some extent, my reservations were being echoed by Rowan Atkinson and others who were saying that if the Bill were passed, it would be difficult to criticise religion. I believe that the Government should take that matter very seriously. I have no religion myselfI am virtually a lifelong non-believerbut it goes without saying that I believe in people's right to practise, or not to practise, a religion. I certainly take the view that religion should be the subject of criticism. That applies to any religion, although it is mainly the Christian religion that is the subject of satire. There is no reason, as I said on 11 July, why Islam, or the Jewish, Hindu or Sikh religions should not face the same ridicule and criticism that the Christian religion has faced over the past 25 years or so. I am pleased with the Government's supplementary provisionsI know that they will not satisfy the critics because, frankly, nothing will, given that they are largely opposed to the measurewhich make it perfectly clear that someone is not guilty of an offence unless they are
	reckless as to whether religious hatred would be stirred up.
	Moreover, the provisions state that
	a person is not guilty of an offence under this Part of intending to stir up religious hatred if he intends to stir up hatred against a religion, religious belief or religious practice.
	To a large extent, the Government have tried to meet the criticism of those of us who were concerned that Rowan Atkinson had a valid point. He may not be satisfied, as critics are generally not satisfied, but the Government have tried to tackle concerns, and they should be congratulated.
	In our debate, as on previous occasions, the Government have repeatedly been asked to give examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), for instance, wanted them to give examples of offences that are not covered by existing law and the Minister tried to explain the position.
	To return to the core issue, why are the Government introducing the legislation? The cynical, simplistic view, certainly of the Opposition, is that it is a tactic to attract Muslim votes. That may be a crude way of putting it, but I do not believe that is the case. Neither do I believe that Muslims will vote Labour simply because of the measure. There is no evidence in the past 40 years that people of Jewish origin or people who practise the Jewish religion said that they would vote Labour because of legislation on incitement to race hatred. Indeed, if we look at the Jewish vote, we can see that it turned to Labour when the lower-middle class and the middle class proper started to vote Labour in 1997. I simply do not believe that the Muslim population will say, Ah, the Government have passed a measure on the religious hatred. That's a good reason to vote Labour.
	The Government are genuinely concerned, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friends today and on previous occasions, about people who are being victimised, spat on, looked on with contempt and spoken of in a certain way simply because they belong to the Muslim faith. That is the reason why they have acted, just as, more than 40 years ago, previous Labour Governmentsnot Conservative Governmentsintroduced the measures to which I referred and which were the subject of intense criticism and opposition by the Conservatives. Reference has been made to political correctness. If political correctness means in effect that people are protected in law against religious or racial abuse and so on, I am very much in favour of it. Whatever it has brought aboutthere are some distortions and exaggerationsit is better than the situation that existed before those laws were passed.

James McGovern: On examples, in a previous debate in the House on the subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr.   Khan) gave the example of the British National party, which advised its members to put posters in their windows. It knew that it could not get away with saying, Jews out or Sikhs out, but it knew that it could say, Muslims out. That is a good example. If the BNP is exploiting such a loophole, Members on both sides of the House should take every opportunity to close it.

David Winnick: I fully endorse that. Some Opposition MembersI except Opposition spokesmen, who do not deny that there is a problem but believe that it can be resolved by existing laws, so clearly we disagreesimply do not accept what my hon. Friend said. They do not accept that Muslims are demonised and subject to unacceptable abuse.

Evan Harris: People who aspire to the hon. Gentleman's track record on anti-racism oppose the measure because they recognise that religion and race are different. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) is wrong because, the Norwood case, which has already been cited, shows that such acts are public order offences under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Someone who put up a poster saying, Muslims out of Britain, with a picture of the twin towers, was prosecuted under that legislation. Sub judice rules do not apply when we are making law, so I can say that Nick Griffin has been prosecuted for his disguised racism using religious words, which is evidence that the existing law bites. I urge the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to reconsider his criticism in this area.

David Winnick: I do not question, any more than he does mine, the hon. Gentleman's total commitment to anti-racism. That goes without saying, but the Government disagree with him, as I do, because there are certain forms of abuse and so on that are not covered by existing law. The argument that there is a difference between race and religion is true to some extent. Someone cannot change their race. I have previously given the example of Disraeli, who may have been a Christian many times over but in many people's eyes remained a Jew because he was born a Jew. However, we should accept that, although we can change our religion, for many people, especially among ethnic minorities, religion is something that they hold dear. We cannot simply say that someone can choose their religion, as we must recognise that the religion they follow is fundamental to their personality and their way of life.
	I said that I would be brief, so I shall conclude. I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that he may well be correct. In practice, his criticisms may be such that we may regret what I hope we will do tonight. I do not believe that that will be the case. I repeat that all those who criticised race legislation and who argued that, by passing the Race Relations Act 1976 and incitement to race hatred measures, we would undermine the traditional liberties and freedoms of our countries were wrong. Just as I believe that they were wrong, I believe that those who oppose what we are doing now will prove to be wrong.

John Hayes: Much of the time in the House, Members are obliged to resist the temptation to indulge in overstatement. Tonight, we must resist the temptation to understate the case, because this is a matter of great seriousness that goes to the very heart of the nature of our society and the freedoms that we enjoy.
	The Lords amendments are an attempt to improve the Bill, or perhaps an attempt to limit the damage that it may do. They go to the very heart of the matter. The nub of our consideration concerns the essence and expression of belief. That men hold strong belief is not itself virtuous. As has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, some beliefs are repugnant, but beyond such repugnant views, it is arguable that belief in anything is better than belief in nothing. The absence of purposeful passionthe ugly nihilism that leads men to murder carelessly or to abuse without conscienceis not merely the absence of goodness but its antithesis. When I am asked whether I detest cruelty, whether I abhor mindless destructiveness and whether I hate evil, I reply, Yes, I do. In that, I am inspired by the Bible, which tells me that I must
	Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
	For those hon. Members who are not as familiar with the Bible as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is Romans 12:9.
	I must hate wrong actions and wrong ideas. Those who flew the aeroplanes into New York's twin towers believed that they died martyrs' deaths and that they would go straight to paradise. Such evil ideas are not matters of indifference. They should be hatedindeed, they must be hated, so that society remains free. If I promote hatred of those ideas, someone will undoubtedly allege that I am either intentionally or recklessly promoting hatred of people.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend will remain completely invulnerable to the Bill, but our constituents, who will live in fear in the atmosphere that this Bill is about to create, will not.

John Hayes: With the alacrity and perspicacity for which my hon. Friend is renowned, he has anticipated my next point. The only people who will be free from the culture of fear, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) painted a picture in his excellent appraisal from the Front Bench, are hon. Members, who are protected by parliamentary privilege. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, this House will be the only place in the kingdom where we can speak our minds. The distinction between the proper exposition of hatred of evil and the Minister's case on recklessness and intent is so narrow that it is impossible to draft amendments adequately to deal with it, but at least the Lords have attempted to modify the excesses of the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that many people do not believe that we need a Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, and he was right. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have touched on the reason why many of us believe that such a Bill is unnecessary: there is already law to protect people from the sort of thing that he fears. As has been said repeatedly, statute already exists to protect people and, since 2001, it has had a religious element, too.
	If we believe that it is right to hate wrong, and if we believe that it is right to express that hatred, we may well fall foul of the new legislation. Most people who have strong beliefs want to express them and those who have strong political or religious beliefs have a mission to express them and, indeed, to convert. Some people will undoubtedly perceive that as insulting or offensive, while others will undoubtedly perceive it as a threat. Such people will go to the police, who will find themselves in the impossible situation of having to make theological or political judgments on matters about which they may know very little.
	The freedom to express strong belief is not unlimitedthose hon. Members who know me well know that I would never make the case for unlimited freedombut freedom is best constrained by manners, courtesy, custom and convention. Occasionally, freedom must be constrained by law, but it should always be done with the utmost caution. The Minister, who is an honourable and decent man, should exercise great caution tonight in making his argument and directing Government Members.
	The Lords amendments form a perfectly reasonable compromise and I and other hon. Members cannot understand why the Government do not simply accept them. The Government's manifesto pledge to create a religious hatred offence would be fulfilled and they could return to those with whom they no doubt brokered a deal and tell them that they have delivered on their promise. Furthermore, Rowan Atkinson, Justice, the Christian Institute, the National Secular Society, the Muslim Association of Britain and many other groups that have lobbied against the Bill would go away if not exactly happy, then at least relieved that the scope of the offence had been circumscribed.
	It is notable that many religious and secular believers do not seek the legal protection that the Government seem so enthusiastic to give them. That is because the new offence is like an unguided missileno one can be entirely sure who it will hit. That is why an unlikely alliance of writers, comedians, lawyers, secular groups and religious interests are combined in their opposition to the Government's proposal. Interestingly, none of those groups has been deterred by what the Government claim is a compromise and none has been put off their course by the Government amendments.
	Like many hon. Members, that broad coalition is not satisfied by the Government's proposals and is less satisfied by the Minister's lukewarm assurances that our safety lies in guidance or legal interpretation. When a Minister relies on that argument at the Dispatch Box, we know that he is on weak ground, however good a man and however well intentioned he may be. If I may be allowed a brief aside in a serious speech, any man with a direct relationship with Postman Pat must be a decent fellow.
	The Government have floundered on two particular matters, which I shall briefly reprise before sitting down so that other hon. Members can contribute. First, the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) pointed out that it is impossible to understand how the Government can reconcile recklessness, which is extreme carelessness, with intent or intention, which implies a deliberate decision to act.

Edward Leigh: In the past, recklessness has always been used to deal with a mischief that has already taken place, such as grievous bodily harm. For the first time, recklessness will deal with a mischief that has not yet taken place, which is a new concept in British law.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is a distinguished lawyer and an even more distinguished human being, so I am guided by his expertise.
	Secondly, the person in the world of religion and politics who has not suffered abuse or insults and who has not accepted that that is part of the package is not being entirely truthful or does not exist.
	The Lords amendments are reasonable. It is a widely held view that it is the Government who are acting recklessly and so I hope that the whole House will support the Lords amendments and oppose the Government.

Mark Fisher: We are into the last half hour of several months of debate on the Bill, and several problems and difficulties remain unresolved. In a brave attempt to explain the Government's position, the Minister has tried to address those problems, but particularly in relation to proposed new section 29K, where the language is opaque and the argument circular, his reassurances are not substantial enough to justify supporting the Government.
	The Minister has placed a great deal of stress on the guidance, but as has been said, these laws are very serious and the offences carry a seven-year prison sentence. Guidance does not have the force of law, and we can be concerned only with what is on the face of the Bill, which will be the law of the land.
	The Minister has also placed a lot of confidence in the fact that the courts will decide such matters. However, I am surprised that there have not been more references in the debate to the state of Victoria in Australia, where similar legislation has been on the statute book for several years, but the courts are asking the Government to relieve them of it. Our courts are set up as criminal and civil courts, not as theological courts capable of making such distinctions. They will be asked to do an impossible job: to make judgments that they have neither the competence nor the will to undertake.
	The Minister said that we should leave such matters to the good sense of juries, but by the time that we get to the jurieswho will probably take the same view that the jurists in Australia are taking: that they do not want to be involved because they do not have the necessary competencethe damage will have been done by what has been referred to tonight as the chill factor. The damage is done as soon as an offence is reported; that is when the suppression of views takes place.
	Nobody disputes that the Government have the perfectly good and fair intention of creating a level playing field in these matters. However, in not accepting the idea of creating a negative level playing field by abolishing the law of blasphemythe Minister offered no explanation as to why they did not accept that ideathey may, I fear, have done exactly the reverse of their intention. The level playing field that they have created will consist of mischievous prosecutions and accusations. All Muslim organisations in this country, other than the Muslim Council of Britain, recognise that this legislation is deeply flawed, and almost all Muslims in this country understand that they will be as much the victims of it as anybody else. There will be a rash of mischievous and extremist accusations, attempted prosecutions and reports to the police. We will have a level playing field, but it will be one of misery.
	This legislation does not protect Muslims, who will be as vulnerable as anybody else. It is deeply confused and wholly unnecessary in this form, and I fear that it will be very counter-productive.

Ann Widdecombe: This is one of those Bills whose face is liberalism, but whose heart is oppression. The society in which we now live is unrecognisable from the freedom that we knew only a few years ago. We are not in danger of being shanghaied off to the Lubyanka, but we are in danger of the police knocking on the door or ringing us up and starting an investigation against us not on the basis of what we have allegedly done, or of threats that we have allegedly uttered, but merely on the basis of a view that we have expressed.
	There have been some ludicrous examples and some dangerous examples. I do not often stand up for the Prime Minister and I shall not make a habit of it, but perhaps the most ludicrous occurred when the Prime Minister made a rather disobliging comment about the Welsh to his own television set. It was deemed to be worthy of investigation by the North Wales constabulary. You could not make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it actually happened. Then, there was the much more serious example involving Lynette Burrowes, who is a respected children's writer. She expressed the view that she had reservations about the adoption of children by same-sex couples. That same view was freely expressed by Members in this House, and without any danger of police proceedings, when we debated the law in question. [Interruption.] My colleagues are right to say that we are okaythat we are protected. However, Lynette Burrowes had the police on the phone to her.
	There is an even worse example. A couple living in Lancashire asked their local council if they could display Christian literaturethey did not say anything in publicalongside material from the council promoting civil partnerships. If the council had simply said no, that would have been one thing. Did it? No, it called in the police. The couple were interviewed in their own home by the police for an hour and 20 minutes. That should frighten any Member who is seriously concerned for the liberties of this nation. There is the further example, often quoted tonight, of Sir Iqbal Sacranie. He did nothing more than elucidate Muslim teaching, yet he was immediately investigated by the police because somebody made a complaint.
	All those examples have one thing in common. Someone somewhere decided to take offence at what had been said. That person made a complaint to the police, who believeerroneously, in my viewthat it is sufficient for a complaint to be made for it to have to be investigated. If they apply this Bill's provisions in that way, there will be an immensely oppressive impact not only on Christians and Muslims, but on anybody who says anything that somebody else decides is worthy of police investigation.
	I would go along with such a provision if we narrowed it to intent, because nobody is going to say that one should intend to stir up religious hatred. But this is not about intent; it is about subjective judgments such as abuse and insults. As I have said before, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) should be allowed to say, if he wants tohe has mellowed a bit recently, so he might not want tothat I have signed up with the Antichrist. He should be allowed to say, if he wants to, that when I go into a church in which there are statues, I am practising idolatry. He should be allowed to say, if he wants to, that when I take part in the sacrifice of the mass, I am committing blasphemy. He can say all those things, and yes, I will find them insulting, but I am 58 and I have often been insulted in my life. I have no doubt whatever that I will be insulted again, but I shall not think that the remedy for feeling insulted is to go off whingeing to a policeman.
	It is regrettable that we have only three hours for this important debate. I accept wholly that there have been previous stages of this Bill, but the other place has made some very important amendments that need careful study. We already live in a society in which things that would have been unthinkable a few years ago are a daily reality: a society in which, if one simply speaks to a viewpoint, one can end up on the wrong end of a police investigation. That is not the Britain that I want to live in, and this Bill makes it more likely that that effect will be increased, not decreased.

Tony Wright: As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I have genuinely worked hard in trying to support the Bill, even up until yesterday evening. If today's vote was on whether the Minister is a good man, we would have no need for a Division. If the question was whether his assurances can be trusted, there would be no need for a Division. If the question was whether there are good intentions behind the Bill, there would be no need for a Division.
	It is a source of regret, by the way, that we have to discuss such issues on the basis of whipped party votes. Whatever view the House comes to, the outcome would have far more legitimacy in the eyes of the public and of all the groups affected by this legislation if they could feel that we had reached it on the basis of genuinely open judgments of our own. We, as a House, do ourselves a huge disservice when we treat such issues in this way.
	A central issue that I and others have wrestled with has run through the entire debate surrounding the Bill from the very outset: is it possible to give additional protection to believers for the reasons that have been adduced, while at the same time avoiding giving unwarranted protection to beliefs?
	I started off by thinking that it would be almost impossible to do that. I wanted the ability to say that I hate religious bigots. I do hate religious bigots. Hatred means intense loathing. I have intense loathing of religious bigots. In fact, I want to go around urging other people to hate religious bigots. The world would be a better place if we all hated religious bigots, and I am instinctively anxious about a piece of legislation that makes it in some respects harder, and in other respects illegal, to go around saying that I hate religious bigots.
	However, I was prepared to examine the case to see whether we could achieve a balance. When I asked the Minister about these things before, he assured me, and he has done his best to redeem the pledge, that he would try to find the correct balance and to insert a savings clause in the Bill guaranteeing the free speech that we were worried about. In the immensely difficult task of squaring the circle, he was helped hugely by what the other place has done.
	The Lords delivered to us a Bill which, if it did not completely square the circle, did it as well as it was humanly possible to do. I would have been very happy to support it on that basis. We would have fulfilled our manifesto commitment, but we would have done it in a way that did not damage the traditions of free speech that are essential to our society. I regret the fact that the Government have not felt it possible to accept what the other place has done. They have put into the Bill a savings clause, but they have done that in a way that cuts it away again. That is the difficulty.
	I am a rebel, but a very reluctant rebel. I did not want to oppose the Bill, because the Government are introducing it for the right reasons, but we should be wary about crossing a boundary. Whichever view people take on what we are doing, we are crossing a boundary tonight as we move from believers to beliefs. I do not feel comfortable crossing that boundary. I do not feel comfortable giving protections to belief systems, which is essentially what we are doing. In doing that, we are cutting against what we think is the tradition of an open society.
	The only values that we should seek to protect in law are the values that protect our democracy itself. One of those valuesthe key valueis the ability to attack other people's belief systems with all the vigour that we can command. In so far as we depart from that and depart from it knowingly, we do damage to the democratic system itself.

Michael Gove: It is a great privilege to be called to speak after my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). In their speeches, both were tremendous advertisements for independence of mind.
	It is independence of mind that is under assault in the Bill before the House this evening. If the Government get their way and their amendments are carried, we will see not only a significant curtailment of freedom of speech in this country, but perhaps the most significant undermining of religious liberty since 1688. I mention the 17th century advisedly, because that was the last time in this country when questions of political and religious strife put lives at risk on the mainland of the United Kingdom. During that period of the 17th century, one of our greatest writers, Milton, even at that time of strife, made a heartfelt plea for liberty in his work, Areopagitica. Milton pointed out that truth did not need the law to suppress falsehood in order to prevail. In open debate, those who are confident of their beliefs will not want the state to intervene on their side, because the confidence in their beliefs will be enough to sustain them.
	It is significant that almost all the religious groups in this country which are organised and respectable are opposed to the Bill. They have sufficient confidence in the strength of their own beliefs not to pray the state in aid. It is striking that there are only one or two significant exceptions to that rule. One of them has been the Muslim Council of Britain. Its head, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, has throughout his career been a doughty fighter against prejudice against those whom he represents.
	I would happily acknowledge that there is much that can be done by Government and by all politicians to fight prejudice and racism against Muslims and other minorities, but I suspect that in the past few weeks Sir Iqbal and others have begun to realise how dangerous it is to criminalise free speech in this country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald pointed out, Sir Iqbal himself was on the receiving end of the attentions of the police for words that he uttered on Radio 4words that I find offensive, but which I believe that he has every right to utter on whatever platform is given to him. Because of that intervention in Sir Iqbal's right to speak freely, we can all see the dangers of criminalising speech.
	Sir Iqbal was referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) in the context of the debate about The Satanic Verses. It is appropriate that we consider for a moment the controversy that surrounded the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel. If we imagine that the law that the Government intend to pass today were in place then, I submit that The Satanic Verses would never have been published by Penguin.
	Let us look at proposed new section 29K and the references to abusive and insulting behaviour and to recklessness, and ask ourselves this question: if we had been executives at Penguin and had read that text and calculated the effect that it was likely to have on the Muslim community in this Britain, would we have calculated that it would abuse the Muslim faith? We would certainly have made that calculation. Would we have known that individual Muslims would be insulted? Of course we would have recognised that. Would we have known that, by publishing, we could have been accused of recklessness? We would have been aware that that accusation would be flung at us.
	Would we therefore have taken the risk of publishing? I suspect that we would not, and that, to me, would have been not just a loss for freedom of speech, but an attack on the creative spirit and a loss of what makes us a distinctive and cherishably free country. That chill factor, which would have applied to The Satanic Verses if the legislation had been in place, has been mentioned by several hon. Members. It is a worrying curtailment of liberty and an ominous extension of state power.
	There are two other areas that I shall cite briefly where the state extends its power in an ominous way in the Bill. First, there is an unwarranted and ominous extension of Executive power in the reliance that the Minister places on guidance to the prosecuting authorities and to the police. As nearly every hon. Member who has referred to the guidance has pointed out, we all have complete faith in the Minister to frame guidance that would be sensible and proportionate, but whatever our beliefs about the immortality of the Minister's soul, we know that he will not be permanently in office. We cannot trust future Ministers and future Governments necessarily to frame guidance that will be proportionate and correct. It is quite wrong for us to trust the Executive to decide what prosecutions could and should be brought in the future. We should decide now and write that into the Bill as we discuss it.
	There is one final area where the state arrogates to itself unwarranted power in the Billthat is, in the very definition of what constitutes religion. It is wrong that the state should be able to extend to any group of believers a privileged status by saying that they constitute a fit and proper religion. If we consider recent reports about what happened in the Navy when an individual officer claimed for himself, on the basis that he was a Satanist, a safe religious space in which to enact his rituals, we can see that the present Government and future Governments may extend to all sorts of cults and other unsavoury groups the protection that is in the Bill.
	I have no hesitation in saying, safeguarded by privilege as I am, that I regard Scientology as an evil cult founded by an individual purely in the interests of enriching himself and sustained by those who are either wicked or wayward. But if the Bill were to pass and I were to repeat those comments outside this House as an ordinary civilian, I would lay myself open to prosecution simply for having sought to point out the dangers of a fraudulent organisation masquerading as a religion.
	I have pointed to three dangersthree extensions of state powerwhich are three very good reasons why I believe that the Government should withdraw their amendments and we should accept the wisdom of the other place.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I have my name on a bewilderingly large number of amendments that would have the effect of putting the Lords amendments back into force. I say straight away that I put my name to those amendments somewhat unwillingly. It is an awesome and awful thing to put one's name to an amendment that is critical of one's own Government. That is the first matter that I take on board.
	The second is that at the outset, when the Bill began its passage through this House on Second Reading, I was one of those who believed that it was ill-conceived and should fall. I have changed my mind on that, which is why I have signed the amendments as they stand.
	It is relevant to consider why I took that view. I am one of those who believes that there is a profound division between race and religion and that the sentry posts that man that division are the moral imperatives of ought and should. Nobody can say to me that I ought to be black, white, Chinese or Russian, but there is no shortage of people outside this House, and some inside it, who would have no hesitation in saying that I ought to be Christian, Islamic, or Jewish, particularly if I chose to marry into that faith.
	For 300 years, we have from time to time issued edicts to protect minorities on the ground of racethe Race Relations Act 1976 was not the first example of that. I tried to discover one that is a particular favourite of mine in the statute book, but I was unable to do so. I know that it exists, so Members will have to take it from me. It is the enactment in the vagabond legislation that a man should not be taken to be a vagabond simply because he is Scottish.
	However, we have always set our face against the protection of faith by statute. The reason for that is very simple. Because of 200 years of religious intolerance, which led to nothing but bigotry and death, we have always understood that one cannot protect the faith without protecting the fundamentalist and the bigot who lie within it. Indeed, the legislation that we pass has precisely the reverse effect because the people whom we protect most are those who come close to committing the offences that we are attempting to place on the statute book. We end up with a gloomy vortex whereby I loathe bigotry and those who preach against any faith, and then those people say that my loathing them makes me liable under the very legislation that we have passed. We will create not a tolerant society but a legislative and cultural bear pit.
	The thing is made infinitely worse by importing the concept of recklessness. Recklessness is the bastard part of intention. It has caused more trouble in the English criminal law than any other single concept. It is so wide as to be practically devoid of definition. If I may bore the House for a moment, there are two classic cases. The first is the so-called firebreak case, whereby a man who perceives that there may be a small danger sets up a firebreak that destroys the forest, city, town or whatever he perceived to be in danger. His motives were good, but he was undoubtedly reckless. The second concerns the bus driver who loses his way in a double-decker bus, approaches a low bridge, and says, I don't know whether I can get this bus under there; I might not be able to but let's have a go anyway. He does not intend to kill all the passengers on the top deck, but he is undoubtedly reckless.
	I say that in order to demonstrate just how wide this test is. We have heard excellent examples today concerning the cartoons about the Prophet. Those would undoubtedly be caught by the Billit would not be a question of how one construes the law or of worrying about the courts, judges or juries bringing in perverse verdicts.
	If we pass this Bill in its present form, we will regret it for many years to come. I urge the Government now, before it is too late, to remove the concept of recklessness. Ultimately, we will all agree that an avowed or explicit intention to cause or stir up religious hatred is something that may justifiably be impugned. Anything else will be an incursion on our freedom of speech of historic proportions that will be regretted for generations to come.

Stewart Hosie: In common with many Members, I think that if the Bill was about threatening behaviour, actions or words it is unlikely that there would be any requirement for a Division. But, again in common with many Members, I think that the scope of recklessness and the subjectivity of abuse and insulting behaviour mean that almost anyone could be charged with this offence. We have heard several examplesthere will be many morethat could fall foul of this. Hon. Members have made the case that it is likely to lead to a large number of spurious cases being brought on the basis of a handful of complainants in any given circumstance.
	I am concerned about the impact that the Bill will have on Scotland. As the Minister said, it extends only to England and Wales. New paragraph 29H(2) in the Lords amendments would allow for a sheriff to have a warrant to search a premises in Scotland, presumably after a suspect had been charged on a warrant for his or her arrest issued in England. The Government amendment removes the possibility of such a search warrant being applied for. That may leave us in the ludicrous situation whereby a warrant is issued in England for the arrest of somebody in Scotland, the warrant is exercised and the person is arrested and charged, but no search can be performed on his premises to produce evidence in court.
	That is a contradiction, irrespective of whether one supports the Bill. We know that it will be possible for an English warrant to be exercised for someone furth of England for a crime committed in England. The excellent counsel's opinion cited by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) makes it clear that the cases of the Crown v. Harden in 1963 and the Crown v. Manning in 1998 will allow that to happen. We could end up with a situation in which someone who is subject to an arrest warrant issued in England is living in Scotland, having committed a crime in England but not in Scotland.
	That is deeply troubling. In the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, Scotland has already passed legislation to tackle religious hatred based on a joint cross-party report on such matters and after public consultation.
	The relevant section states that an offence is aggravated by religious prejudice if immediately before, during or after the offence the offender evinces malice and ill will based on the victim's membership or presumed membership of a religious group or of a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation. Equally, an offence is aggravated by religious prejudice if it is motivated wholly or partly by malice towards the same group. In such circumstances, the court must take action on the aggravation and the sentence must be different from the sentence that would have been passed if no religious aggravation had occurred.
	It is therefore peculiar that someone acting wholly innocently in Scotland could be the subject of an arrest warrant in England for a crime that exists here but would not be deemed a crime under similar legislation in Scotland. The cases that legal counsel cited as especially worrying relate to broadcasting, journalism and so on.
	According to legal counsel, newspapers would have to obey both current Scottish law and the English religious hatred law for any editions that were sold in England and Wales. For example, The Scotsman could publish a report that was legal in Scotland but could be censored in England. An English distributor could also be found guilty under the Bill while a distributor in Scotland would not be prosecuted.
	The same logic would apply to a Scottish publisher selling books to bookshops in England or to English customers ordering books via mail order or the internet. Once publication or distribution occurred, people could be arrested and prosecuted under the Bill. There are several similar examples and concerns are widespread. Broadcasting, publishing, entertainment and so on that is perfectly innocent and legitimate under Scottish legislation could be prosecuted under English law.
	The Under-Secretary can intervene if he wants to tell me that none of that could happen and that a warrant could not be issued, under any circumstances, for the arrest of someone in the circumstances that I outlined.
	All the examples that have been given, from the mild-mannered Christians, to whom a spokesman on the Tory Benches referred, to Polly Toynbee in The Guardian today, suggest that the Bill goes too far and satisfies almost no one.

John Grogan: I shall speak briefly from the perspective of three passionately held beliefs. First, I believe in the Labour party. As a Labour loyalist, I carry a pocket edition of the manifesto. However, it is the responsibility of all Labour Members to deliver the manifesto. We said that we would legislate to outlaw religious hatred but we also said that we would balance protection with tolerance and free speech. I suspect that the vote will be close and I plead with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to accept, even at this late stage, the House of Lords position, which delivers our manifesto pledge.
	I speak secondly as a practising Catholic and, thirdly, as a strong believer in free speech. For me, the debate turned on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's interview on Today this morning. He said that there was a small problem with existing legislation and a gap to fill. Not unreasonably, he was asked to give one example from the past four years of a case in which existing law was deficient or that the Lords amendments would not cover. He attempted to give an example and I have been asking people about it all day. He cited a horrendous poster about the Muslim religion.
	There have been plenty of lawyers around the place to consult today. They include lawyers from the National Secular Society and the Christian Alliance, and those representing actors. I have even rung several friends who are lawyers but belong to none of those groups. All agreed that the example that the Under-Secretary cited was exactly analogous to the 2003 Norwood case, in which a similarly offensive poster featured. Prosecution occurred because a policeman saw it, a public order offence was brought and a conviction was secured.
	If we are to endure the deleterious consequences of the Bill, it is not too much to ask for examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was not his normal confident self today. He said that we may live to regret the Bill. He also said that he did not believe that we would, but when such a defender of free speech says, even when backing the Government, that we may live to regret something, it gives me cause for concern.
	As a Catholic, I simply say that free speech is the best defence of any religion. My religion has been persecuted and has also persecuted people. Free speech is the best defence. Given the freedom of speech defences that the Government have included in the Bill, it is regrettable that they are stymied and reduced basically to saying, This is not an offence if it is not an offence. Such tautology is not good enough. I plead with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to withdraw their objections to the Lords amendments, which satisfactorily fulfil the manifesto on which we stood for office.

Ian Paisley: I should like to say a few words with reference to what has been said by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I am glad to be able to say to her that, when we come into this House every day, we have prayers and that the Book of Common Prayer is opened, and that everything that I believe is in that book, although I am a Presbyterian. The right hon. Lady can work that out in her own way.
	I believe in the integrity of the Ministers on the Front Bench, and I believe that they would like us to put our faith in them. But when this matter comes before the courts, they will not be there. It will not matter what they have said; we could bring 10 pages of Hansard and read them out in court, but they would not be accepted. We are making the law in the House tonight. I must say honestly that, when I listened to the Minister arguing, I realised that he was arguing in a circle and that he could not get out of that circle. That is the crux of the matter. If we want to unite our nation, we should go for free speech. We should say, Look, we are all different, but we must be allowed to express our differences, not to stir up strife but to maintain the principle of freedom. I say to the House tonight that that freedom was bought at a terrible price; please do not sell it, or we shall all regret it.
	It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker proceeded to put the Questions necessary to conclude the proceedings on the consideration of the Lords' amendments, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment: No. 2.
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.[Paul Goggins.]
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 278, Noes 288.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	The Schedule
	Lords amendment: No. 4.
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.[Joan Ryan.]
	The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 283.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Charles Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of the House's decisions this evening, I think it appropriate to inform the Houseif that is acceptable to youof how we see the position at the moment. [Interruption.] The Bill will now proceed to Royal Assent as it stands. That means that the debate between the House of Commons and the House of Lords will be about threatening behaviour, but will not include insulting and abusive behaviour; it will concern intent only, not recklessness; and it will deal with a wide-ranging freedom of expression clause.
	Despite this evening's defeat for the Government, I am delighted that we are introducing legislation to deal with the issues that we must address. There have been substantial arguments in both the House of Commons and the other place[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary is trying to address the House and the Chair on a point of order, which I must hear fully. I do not think that this barracking helps.

Charles Clarke: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say clearly that the Government accept the House's decision this evening, that we are delighted that the Bill is proceeding to its Royal Assent, and that we are delighted to have a Bill that deals with incitement to religious hatred? We regret that the agreements and discussions in the other place did not happen, but I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will accept our determination to carry the Bill through.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must tell the Home Secretary that that developed into rather more than a point of order, but it is on the record. The House has made its decision tonight, and people will reflect on that.

Pensions

[Relevant documents: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Work and Pensions Committee on 14 December, Session 200506, HC 618 on the Pensions Commission report.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Joan Ryan.]

John Hutton: I shall try to keep my remarks to a minimum, so that Back Benchers on both sides of the House can contribute fully to what will unfortunately be a much shorter debate than many of us would have liked.
	The publication of the second report of the Pensions Commission in November marked the beginning of a major new phase in the ongoing national debate about the long-term future of our pensions system. I believe that its analysis is comprehensive and thorough, and that its recommendations are radical and far-reaching. That is why I believe that its proposals have given us an opportunity to build a consensus on the long-term direction that we should take.

Quentin Davies: Does the Secretary of State not agreeat least in retrospect, following the drama of the earlier part of the eveningthat it would be wrong to suggest that the Turner report, given its potentially momentous conclusions for the whole population, can be dealt with adequately by Parliament in the hour and a half between now and 10 pm? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to find out whether we can have a second session?

John Hutton: We have three hours for the debate, not an hour and a half. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech during that time. HoweverI mean no disrespect to Opposition Members or, indeed, my hon. FriendsI do not intend to accept many interventions. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman was going to make a point about pensions, but, sadly, he did not.
	Given the importance of the issues, I think it is absolutely right for Members to have an opportunity to participate in, and lead, the debate. In all parts of the House, there is a depth of knowledge and expertise that may be enormously helpful as we prepare our response to Lord Turner's proposals. We are therefore keen to hear the views of every Member. In response to what was said by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), let me express the hope that we shall have another opportunity to debate the issues before we produce our White Paper in the spring.
	I am glad that the Pensions Commission acknowledged the progress that we have made in reducing pensioner poverty since 1997. It was our first priority when we came to office, and rightly so. By targeting resources through the minimum income guarantee and then through pension credit we have ensured that there is help for the poorest pensioners, tackling the shameful legacy of pensioner poverty that we inherited in 1997. We now spend nearly 11 billion extra each year on pensioners, and almost half that additional spending goes to the poorest third. We have succeeded in helping nearly 2 million pensioners to escape from the poverty line. As is shown by figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we are now in an almost unprecedented position in which pensioners are no more likely to be poor than any other group in society.

Peter Bone: I am not going to sit here and listen to that. The Government have been in power for 10 years. To try to say that the pensions crisis is to do with the previous Tory Government is ridiculous.

John Hutton: No one is keeping the hon. Gentleman here. He does not have to stay to listen to anything that he does not find comfortable or worth listening to, but I point out the reality of pensioner poverty that we inherited in 1997. He can go on disputing that. He just needs to check the historical record.
	We have taken measures in the Pensions Act 2004 to tackle the loss of confidence in the private pensions market, including addressing the pensions mis-selling scandal, and the impact of a falling stock market and rising longevity on occupational pension schemes. The introduction of the Sandler suite and stakeholder pensions have been important steps in facilitating low-cost private savings.
	All those were critical and necessary measures, dealing with the most immediate and serious challenges that we faced when we came into office, but now we must go further to build a system that will enable us to meet two significant challenges. The first is the unprecedented demographic changes that are taking place in our society. Soon, for the first time in our country's history, there will be more people over the age of 80 than under the age of five. The second challenge is the extent of under-saving, which the Pensions Commission calculated as leaving nearly 10 million people not saving enough for their own retirement.
	It was to meet those challenges that we established the commission. We must now build on the progress that we have made in tackling poverty and in promoting equality and security, reduce the complexity of the current system and ensure that people can plan and save with confidence. We are looking for the widest possible cross-party consensus on those reforms.
	In my statement to the House on the publication of Lord Turner's report, I said that our response would be based on five key tests. The first is personal responsibility. As my predecessors have made clear, the primary responsibility for security in old age must rest with the individual and their family. An active welfare state must provide a floor below which no one should be allowed to fall, but its primary role must be to enable people to provide for themselves, giving everyone the opportunity to build a decent retirement income that will meet their personal needs and expectations.
	Of course, to achieve that, we need to achieve two of Lord Turner's central objectives: first, strongly to encourage individuals and their employers to provide for a pension that will deliver at least a minimum base load of earnings replacement; and secondly, to enable all people to have the opportunity to save for a decent pension at the lowest possible cost.
	Lord Turner saw a major expansion of workplace savings as being fundamental to achieving both those objectives, recommending that all employees should be automatically enrolled into either a high-quality employer pension scheme or a newly created national pensions savings scheme. The principle of personal accounts has been widely welcomed, rightly, because I believe that that is the right way forward. Not unreasonably, the pensions industry is keen to explore alternative ways of achieving Lord Turner's objectives. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions Reform has invited all those in the industry who believe that they can produce a better model for personal accounts to work up the details of their alternative approach.
	There are three priorities for all of us here. First, any model must be able to achieve a radical extension of pension coverage, including lower and moderate earners, the self-employed and those working for small employers. Secondly, it must achieve a radical reduction in cost in terms of both low management charges and reduced administration costs for business, boosting in the process the value of any pension that will be paid out. Finally, it must be portable and reliable, adaptable to lifestyle choices and tailored to the personal needs of consumers.

Philip Hollobone: In looking at groups that are not taking up pension entitlements as all of us would wish, may I urge the Secretary of State to focus on married women who stay at home to bring up their children? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but whoever has that phone should silence it immediately. It is quite out of order.

Philip Hollobone: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That may have been a married woman listening to the debate and wanting to urge me to make this point. There are demonstrable benefits to society from women staying at home and bringing up their children, but many of those women lose out later in life because they do not have adequate pension savings.

John Hutton: I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I shall say something about the position of women under the current system, and how they fare quite badly, in a few moments.

David Taylor: A moment ago, the Secretary of State said that it was important that people take responsibility for their pensions, and the public increasingly accept that. However, does he agree that contributions to the state system should be made on a fair and progressive basis? The cap means that a person earning just over the average income of 30,000 pays 9.2 per cent. in national insurance, whereas someone earning 100,000 pays 3.7 per cent. and someone earning 1 million pays 1.3 per cent. That cannot be fair. Surely there must be some scope to make the contribution system fairer?

John Hutton: Matters to do with national insurance are, of course, for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	Finding the right approach to achieve the objective of a personalised, flexible tool that can enable people to save at low cost is a key part of any long-term pension reform. We start with a clear view about our objectives, but we have an open mind about how they can best be achieved.
	However, one thing is clear, and it is that employers have an important responsibility to fulfil. Many employers already contribute much more than the 3 per cent. proposed by the Pensions Commission. For those who do not, the question is whether some form of compulsion is necessary and appropriate.
	In 2004, nearly 80 per cent. of funded pension contributions came from employers. An employer contribution adds value to the pensions saving of an individual, as the figures make clear, and it can also act as an important catalyst for employee participation in the first place. However, the Government must be aware of the economic burden that adding costs to employers through any form of compulsion would impose.
	That is especially true for smaller businesses. Clearly, a compulsion on small employers to contribute to pension schemes could have a disproportionate impact. We must be mindful of all such considerations before we proceed along this path.
	The second test is that any proposals for reform must be fair, as the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr.   Hollobone) said. Any reform package must continue to protect the poorest people, so that the poverty that blighted the lives of millions of pensioners at the end of the last century will never recur. The package must be fair to those who have saved, reward those who have contributed and incentivise those who can save to do so. Crucially, it must be fair to women and carers, correcting past inequalities and reflecting those people's changing role in today's society.

Andrew Love: May I press my right hon. Friend on the issue of fairness? The Turner commission had very little to say about the massive inequality that exists between those who receive very significant tax relief on pension pots of up to 1.5 million and those at the bottom of the income scale who receive very little in the way of support. Will he put that disparity at the centre of his considerations of fairness when he comes to decide the shape of any future system?

John Hutton: Obviously, we will look at all such matters in our White Paper proposals. It is not true that Lord Turner was not concerned about correcting inequalities in the pension system, especially as they affect women. He proposed a number of solutions, to which I shall come in a moment. Moreover, the tax simplifications introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will come into effect this April. They will offer significant improvements and advances in the current tax arrangements. We are making progress, and my hon. Friend may have an opportunity to explore his own proposals later in the debate.
	We have already introduced a range of measures to improve the position of women pensioners in particular, both in the labour market and in terms of income in retirement. The minimum wage and the pension credit regime have been especially beneficial to women. Two thirds of the pensioners lifted out of absolute poverty since 1997 are women. The introduction of the state second pension means that the proportion of women now accruing significant state pension rights is similar to that of men, while almost all of the 1.9 million carers, and two thirds of the 5.8 million low earners, who have been helped have been women.

Vera Baird: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, as there is no doubt that this Government have helped women pensioners hugely, especially through the pension credit. However, if a women does not have a full basic state pension she will not, by virtue of the state second pension, come out of the pension credit limit. Is not the real difficulty, therefore, the fact that only 17 per cent. of women have a full basic state pension when they retire?

John Hutton: Yes, those figures are broadly right. It is worth bearing in mind that we estimate that over the next 20 years men and women will accrue an equal entitlement to state pensions. That is progress, and it is progress that some people thought would not happen. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the current system does not treat women fairly, and we will address those issues in the White Paper to be published in the spring. I wish to pay tribute, quickly but sincerely, to my hon. and learned Friend for the work that she has done, together with colleagues from both sides of the House, in campaigning for more equitable treatment for women.
	My argument today is that we can and must do more. Doing so will, however, require making some difficult choices. One approach favoured by Lord Turner is the introduction of a new universal basic state pension for those aged over 75. Another would be to remain true to the contributory principle, but to make adjustments to the number of qualifying yearsfor example, removing the 25 per cent. de minimis limit and turning home responsibilities protection into a system of national insurance credits. In every case, there is more than one way to achieve the objectives that Lord Turner set out. Lord Turner himself judged, for example, that an evolutionary approach to state pension reform was preferable to adopting a more immediate citizen's pension. The citizen's pension would involve spending large amounts of extra money on helping better off pensioners rather than poorer pensioners, so while it offers greater simplicity more quicklyand a route to greater equality for womenit does so at the cost of helping better off pensioners. It also destroys completely the contributory principle and carries significant implications for the crucial third test of affordability.
	Clearly any system needs to be affordable for taxpayers and the economy as a whole. We have an obligation, especially on the Government side of the House, to continue to manage public expenditure prudently and responsibly. Several of the commission's proposals raised the prospect of significant additional Government spendingin particular, the proposed re-linking of the basic state pension to earnings, which wasof course scrapped by the last Conservative Government. Ministers have made it clear that there will be no relaxation in our fiscal discipline and we will not put the public finances at risk. So the affordability test is central. If we are to fund a more generous state pension, such as the one Lord Turner has proposed, the critical question will be how we pay for it.

David Laws: The Secretary of State says that he is concerned about affordability in relation to the basic state pension, but is he also concerned about the affordability of public sector pensions? As a share of the national economy, the cost of public sector pensions is going up by 50 per cent. at a time when the basic state pension is static.

John Hutton: We have entered into arrangements that are sustainable. The new arrangements for public sector pensions that we have reached with the trade unions open up the prospect of significant savings for the taxpayer in the next few years. It is not clear to me that the hon. Gentleman is proposing what he suggests he is proposing in relation to public sector pensions. I suspect that we will hear more from him in due course, as we will from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). If I may get my defence in before the attack has been delivered, I would point out that we have spent the past few weeks looking at what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues said about public sector pensions during the election campaign. I tentatively suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he treads warily down the path of suggesting that the deal is not a good one for the taxpayer, becauseas he will know he made no proposals during the election campaign to make any changes to public sector pensions.
	Lord Turner has suggested that the state pension age should rise broadly in proportion to the increase in life expectancy. While that raises questions under the fairness test, it is not possible to have the debate about affordability without seriously considering an increase in the state pension age. My view is that some increase from 2020 is inevitable, but we should consider very carefully all the options for how that can best be delivered.
	The fourth test is simplicity. Any credible package of reform must represent a clear deal between citizens and the state, so that people know what the Government will do for them and what is expected of them in return. The state must be clear about its priorities: a decent pension for both men and women, which can act as a platform on which individuals can be encouraged to save even more themselves, with continued extra help for the poorest pensioners.
	Simplicity also means clarity for individuals about the value of their savings pot. It means clear, credible financial education and advice and an important role for pension information and pension forecasts to show people how much they need to save to achieve the income they want in retirement. Of course, it means people understanding the nature of the risks entailed in any type of savings product. Pensions are never a risk-free business and they should never be presented as such.
	Finally, simplicity means having a system that allows people to plan and which is sustainable for future generations and that is my fifth and final test. If we are to lay the foundations for a lasting pension settlement, it is crucial that any reform package must be underpinned by an enduring national consensusa system that will stand the test of time and not be pulled apart by successive Governments.
	At the beginning of my remarks, I said that securing consensus on the right way forward is our objective, which is why I shall welcome contributions from Members on both sides of the House in the debate. Let us all try to demonstrate a common purpose: to make proper provision for this and future generations of pensioners; to continue to reduce pensioner poverty and to take the long-term decisions on pensions that need to be taken now, building on the progress that has been made, and which are right for both our constituents and our country.

Philip Hammond: This debate was always at risk of being an anti-climax after events earlier in the evening, but it is none the less about a big issue, which is important for all of usthose of us already drawing a pension, those of us approaching retirement and even those of us at the beginning of our working life.
	We are faced with some truly long-term decisions, which our adversarial party political system with its four or five-year cycle may not be ideally designed to address. We caught a little of that in the Secretary of State's tone of voice. He tells us that he wants to build consensus, and the Opposition have certainly come to the debate with that intention. The British people will expect us to lift the debate out of the party political arena and genuinely attempt to build a consensus that gives them the security to plan for the long term, knowing that the settlement we eventually reach will not be unravelled by a spin of the wheel of political fortune.
	This is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss pensions since the publication of the Turner report and at this stage an Adjournment debate is a good forum in which to conduct our discussions. Such is the magnitude of the issue, however, that we shall need further debates, and I am pleased that the Secretary of State acknowledged that that would be possible. I want to consider some of the preliminary issues that we feel need to be addressed to allow us to hold a serious and open debate in the attempt to reach consensus about the long-term future of our pension system. My main focus will be Turner.
	Turner said that there is no immediate crisis. Although there may be no immediate crisis in relation to the state pension or the public sector's ever-mounting liability in respect of its pensions, many people coming up to retirement, who are stakeholders in private pension schemes, are experiencing something that feels remarkably like a crisis. I want to deal with that issue, as I am sure that many Members will want to raise it.
	There are several reasons for the real, current crisis in the private pension sectorsignificantly lower investment returns and rising life expectancy, which is good news for everybody except actuaries. Nobody, not even in our most rabid moments, could hold the Government responsible for those issues. There are other things for which the Government must take responsibility, such as the Chancellor's 5 billion-a-year raid on pension funds, which has wiped about 125 million off the value of pension funds.
	I hope that the Minister will refer to one issue in particular that is outside the scope of the big, long-term debate, although the Government could address it in the shorter term. It is the extent to which the regulatory regime under the Pensions Act 2004, which is supposed to encourage and protect private pensions, is encouraging a retreat from higher risk, higher return assets in favour of liability-driven investment in gilts, with a series of self-reinforcing and rather negative outcomes that we are seeing at the moment. That has driven up demand for long-dated gilts, thus driving down yields. Pension fund liabilities are calculated by reference to the yield on the long-dated gilt, which in turn has increased the deficits of those pensions and fuelled the next round of liability-driven gilt buying. Meanwhile, the funds have missed out on a recovery in the equity markets and perhaps an opportunity to repair the damage that previous stock market downturns have done to their balance sheets.
	I certainly subscribe to the view that politicians, especially Opposition politicians, should not lecture the Debt Management Office on how it manages the public sector debt, so I shall not offer the Minister any recommendation about how the Government should fund their debt, and I urge my colleagues to follow that lead. However, the Minister could look at the demand side of the problem. He could consider the regulatory environment that is driving the flight from risk to gilts. He could also consider the extent to which the regulatory regime and the risk-based pension protection fund levy, which is now anticipated, are reinforcing patterns of investment behaviour that are making it more and more difficult for companies to plug the holes in their pension funds. I should be grateful if the Minister said something about that very immediate problem tonight.
	While the Minister is responding, he might just take a quick look at the financial assistance scheme, which was set up with a great fanfare nearly two years ago to provide a solution for the estimated 85,000 people who have been left high and dry by the collapse of pension funds. The financial assistance scheme has so far paid out to just 15 people, and that figure represents an advance. The latest published Government figure shows that 13 people have benefited, but we are grateful to the Minister for yesterday updating that figure to 15 people. If we could deal with those short-term, immediate issues, that would be great.
	Let us go back to the long-term reform agenda. The Turner report represents a serious analysis of the twin challenges that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has spelled out, namely, of dealing with the demographic changes in Britain's population while maintaining Britain's world competitiveness, which is essential to the prosperity of all of us. Pensioners, those in work and those unable to work all depend on that international competitiveness for our future prosperity.
	Whether or not the Opposition or, indeed, any other hon. Member adopts Lord Turner's recommendations in the end, we should treat his report with respect and use it as the basis of an attempt to build the great consensus that the Secretary of State spoke abouta consensus between political parties in the House, between generations in the country, between the sexes and between different groups in our society. The Opposition are formulating our response to Turner's proposals on the basis of the principles of fairness, sustainability, security and affordability. The settlement must be fair by embracing all types of pensionstate, public and private sectorand it must recognise the differences in people's life expectancy and the need for flexibility to accommodate them. It must address the discrimination against women that is built into the present state system.
	On security, people must be given a clear understanding of what the state will and will not do. That security must be based on a consensus that gives people the confidence to plan ahead and make their own arrangements, with an understanding that the settlement that is reached will endure for many years. On sustainability, the settlement must be durable in the long term. It must provide a solution for today's pensioners, as well as people in work and those who are not yet of working age. Of course, the settlement must be affordable, both now and in the future, against an objective baseline of the likely future cost of the present system, if it remains unaltered.
	As we analyse and consult on the Turner proposals, which the Government are also doing, the big questions are becoming clear. Is the trade-off of a higher state pension age for higher state pensions the right one? Is it affordable and can it be made sufficiently flexible to be fair to those whose life expectancy will be different from the rising average? What degree of compulsion should be employed when encouraging people to save for a second pension? Should employers be required to contribute and, if so, how much? Should there be special arrangementseither subsidies or exemptionsfor small and medium-sized enterprises? How should such a second savings scheme be managed and how will it impact on the existing pensions industry? As the Secretary of State said, the Government are actively pursuing answers to those questions and a lively debate has already begun. Is the balance between public and private provision that Turner proposes the right one for Britain in the 21st century?
	The process is not competitive because we are not trying to get better answers than the Secretary of State. I genuinely hope that by separately pursuing the answers to those questions, we will find not that we get precisely the same answersthat would be too much to expectbut that our answers are sufficiently close to make it possible to build a genuine consensus across the political divide. If we are to have a genuine debate and a real consensus is to be formed, the Government must come to the debate with an open mind. They must be ready to engage in some give and take, because without that we cannot build a consensus.
	The political reality is that if all bar one member of the population reaches a consensus and the one is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we will not have a way forward. It was thus disappointing to those of us who want a consensus that the Chancellor tried to shut down the debate before it got started. He positioned himself from the outset as the road block to pension reform. If we are to have a proper debate, we need transparency, flexibility and impartiality. Nothing must be ruled out and nothing must be off limits in advance of the debate. I have to say that the Government's track record on that is not good, although that is no reflection on the Secretary of State or the Minister for Pensions Reform, because the culprits in this case are the Secretary of State's predecessor but one and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	Although private sector pension stakeholders are facing tough choices and often negotiating against the constraint of the viability of their employers in the face of burgeoning pension deficits, public sector unions face no such constraints. Whether funded or unfunded, any gap in public sector pension provision must be met by the taxpayer. The Secretary of State's party fatally undermined any claim it could make to be addressing the matter impartially when it caved in to the public sector unions on retirement at 60 before the general election, and caved in again in October last year. If we are to have a serious debate and face up to the tough decisions that must be made, the burden of adjustment must be shared equitably. There can be no exclusions or favours for specific groups. We must all be in this together.

John Hutton: I had not intended to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, so I am grateful to him for giving way. Will he clarify whether he is suggesting that the Government should go back on the agreement that we reached with the public sector trade unions? If that is his position, will he explain why he made it clear during the election that he had no plans to change any aspect of the public sector pension deals?

Philip Hammond: The Secretary of State should talk to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the deal is done and that it is set in stone. However, according to the minutes recording the Chancellor's appearance at the Treasury Select Committee on 15 or 16 December, the Chancellor clearly suggested that that was not the case and that it was not set in stone. He said there was merely a framework in place and that negotiations are still to be conducted.
	There is therefore a chink of light, and we need to understand what the Government's position is. Everyone needs to understand their position on this vital issue. [Interruption.] My position is that we are all in this together, whether we have a state, public, or private sector pension. A sometimes painful and difficult adjustment must be made if we are to achieve a sustainable settlement. May I tell the Secretary of State that it is not sustainable to say, before the debate begins, that any group in society should be excluded from facing up to the realities of demographic change, reduced investment returns and all the other factors[Interruption.] The Secretary of State may talk about U-turns now that the election is over, but his Government took on the public sector unions only to back off for party political reasons when the election was called.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman does not want anything to be ruled out or ruled in, and that he wants an equitable and fair arrangement. Will he throw into the mix the 20 billion of tax reliefs that go mainly to the richest 10 per cent. of the population, and thereby help the rest of the population?

Philip Hammond: Our debate is supposed to be about building consensus, but it is becoming a little fraught.

Kelvin Hopkins: Consensus?

Philip Hammond: I do not think we can honestly conduct a debate on the basis that we are trying to build a consensus if we rule anything out before the debate begins. We must consider every aspect, as it would be unreasonable not to do so. People outside the House would not understand what we were trying to do if we were not prepared to look at every aspect of the way in which our pension system works. On the table is a set of proposals from Lord Turner. No one will agree with all of them, but it is a serious piece of work, and it should be the starting point for our debate. I hope that the Minister for Pensions Reform can make it clear that while public sector workers, like their private sector counterparts, are entitled to expect fairness and proper recognition of the accrued pension rights that they have acquired during their period of employment, they, too, are part of the real world and cannot be insulated from the reality of rising life expectancy, which is the key factor underlying our debate.
	Affordability is another critical issue. We cannot have a serious debate unless we are transparent about the financing assumptions underlying the proposals. The Chancellor has already dismissed Turner as unaffordable. A serious debate needs a clear baseline, and Lord Turner sets out his baseline on page 13 of his report. The Government should come clean. We need to know whether we are costing Turner's proposals against a baseline of a minimum income guarantee rising in line with incomes, or against one that rises in line with prices. If the Chancellor wishes to make his baseline assumption an end to the income link in 2008, let him do so and defend the decision publicly. He should not use de-indexing as a stick with which to beat Turner, or as a tool to undermine Turner's proposal, without being prepared to announce and defend that policy.
	The Government must come clean, too, about the savings from the equalisation of women's pension agea net 10.1 billion a year by 2020. Turner assumes that that money is available, but will the Minister confirm in his winding-up speech that the Government's position is that it is not available, because it has been spent on something else? Alone among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, the UK will see the percentage of gross domestic product spent on state-funded pensions and state-funded pensioner benefits declining between 2010 and 2020. If that is the Chancellor's response to the pensions crisis, he should say so. If not, he should have the courage to acknowledge that Turner's assumptions are no more than realistic politics.
	At a time when the private sector has been forced to acknowledge and confront its pension deficits through the Pension Protection Fund levy, FRS 17 and the explicit statement of pension fund liabilities on companies' balance sheets, we can no longer accept the Government shrouding the public sector pension liability in a smokescreen. We need an objective, independent, regularly updated assessment of public sector liabilities as an integral part of the public accounts. Perhaps the Secretary of State will have a word with the Chancellor to see whether the Chancellor can manage that in time for the Budget in March or April. If there is not time to work out the figure, an estimate has been published today, which is somewhat ahead of the Government's most recent estimates.
	Finally, a small but important request to the Ministerif we and others are going to engage in this debate at a serious level, we need the tools to do it. The Turner report contains a wealth of detail, but not the disaggregated data required seriously to examine the options. I have written to the Secretary of State requesting that the Opposition have access to the Department's software model, PenSim2, which was made available to Turner and other outside bodies, because only by using PenSim2 can modelling outputs be directly and robustly compared with Turner's conclusions. Surely the Department is currently examining a range of options, and even if it is not I assure the Minister that the Treasury is. Will the Minister take the opportunity in his winding-up speech to underline the consensual approach by sending a real message to people outside this House that this is not politics as usual and that we are trying to build something together by announcing that he will allow appropriately qualified researchers from the official Opposition and, indeed, any other parties that want to avail themselves of the opportunity, access to the PenSim2 model?
	We are ready to engage in a real debate about long-term solutions to the pensions challenges facing Britain, and we are ready to work with the Government to build a consensus, which is what the British people want and expect.

Vera Baird: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond: I am concluding, and the hon. and learned Lady will have a chance to make her own remarks.
	The future retirement security of the British people is too important an issue and too long-term a challenge to be allowed to become a political football. However, the debate must be genuine. The Government must act now to provide the transparency to allow the debate to be conducted seriously. They must rule out special treatment or exemptions for any group in society. In short, they must sign up to the notion that we are all in this togetherthen, together, we can find a lasting solution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on speeches by Back Benchers, which operates from now.

Frank Field: This debate is narrowly focused on the Pensions Commission report, which is not fit for purpose in three significant ways. Any one of the issues that I hope to raise this evening suggests that we should not go down the path advocated by Turner.
	First, the Pensions Commission report ignores the golden opportunity created by the Chancellor for serious, long-term pension reform. Secondly, it does not examine the dangers to long-term security for pensioners posed by the proposed measures. Thirdly, the proposals simply will not last politically.
	I turn first to the golden opportunity that the Chancellor has created for us. Every major pension reform put before this House in the past 30 or more years, by Governments of both persuasions, has been bedevilled by the fact that, while trying to think about long-term reform, the Government of the day had to deal with how long-term reform might help to deal with the immediate problem of rising pensioner poverty. Through the pension credit, the Chancellor has not merely redistributed more funds to the poorest pensioners than any other Chancellor since 1948I say merely, but that is immensely important to our constituentsbut opened the door for Governments to think carefully about the long term. They no longer need be tripped up by thinking that they should modify the proposals because of the mega-issue of desperate and rising pensioner poverty.
	My disappointment with the Pensions Commission report is that it fiddles around with the furniture, which the Chancellor said he was not happy to do. Such fiddling is also against the report's original terms of reference and distracts our attention from the opportunity for long-term reform. Serious as that is, the report does not stop there: it also presents particular dangers for pension provision. Tucked away in an appendix is the devastating fact that five sixths of the final salary schemes that have closed have done so since 2000; in other words, they have closed under our watch. My worry is that the commission's soft option of trying to entice employers who are not currently contributing directly to their employees' pensions will result in many more employers thinking, Thank God! We can get off this longer-term liability that our predecessors committed us to. Far from extending funded pension coverage, the commission's proposals, if implemented as drafted in the report, could mean the end not merely of final salary schemes, but of defined contribution schemes. Many employers will think that the way for them to remain competitive is to opt into the new national pension saving scheme.
	There is another danger that Turner holds: mis-selling. In his charming and non-controversial way, the Secretary of State warmly shook the neck of the Opposition and reminded them of their responsibilities in respect of previous mis-selling. What will be the charge against any Government who introduce the national pension saving scheme? It is being set up with Government approval, the contributory agency may well make the collections and presumably, the Government will make some warm noises about its being an ideal way to save. They are having difficulties with the ombudsman's report, for which we are waiting, because they produced merely a leaflet telling people that occupational pensions are a good thing, so imagine the rumpus that will occur if one of the proposed schemes does not perform as well as the other savings products to be provided under this particular pension hat. That is not an avenue to go down.
	In my efforts to build a consensus with the Liberal DemocratsI have not yet done so with the ToriesI, along with Matthew Owen, a Liberal Democrat, proposed a national pension savings plan back in 1993. We looked at the real strength of the national savings movement in this country. If the Government wanted additional savings, why not capitalise on that route and set up a national pension savings plan? There would be one product and it would be clear what that was. There would be minimal charges because it would be index-linkeda tracker fundwith trustees elected by the members to make sure the Government did not get their sticky fingers on those funds, and it would not leave the Government open to mis-selling charges.
	The third disadvantage of the provision that the Pensions Commission proposes is that it ignores the huge risk to individuals when they save through individual pots of savings in the private market. I thought that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) would continue his analysis of the dangers that companies were facing. We all know what those dangers are, but private individual savers are facing even more horrendous problems than are companies. To say that a well-managed private pension scheme will advise people to move at the right stage from equities into bonds ignores the fact that that advice might be given just when the equity market has collapsed, so the money being moved into bonds which will buy the annuity has been devalued. For all those reasons, there are huge dangers in going down the Pensions Commission route.
	Finally, I do not think it will last. A serious reform that tries to raise the basic pension significantly for all our citizens and which is on a pay-as-you-go basis will not last the course. We tried that model before. A previous Secretary of State asked me why we opted for SERPS to be pay as you go and not funded. I said, Secretary of State, we were against capitalism then. Ah, he said. That explains why we went down the pay-as-you-go route.
	For all the faults inherent in a funded scheme, it gives us property rights in the capital of the country, but we need to share the risks attached to property owning as a means of providing pensions. When the Government Actuary has costed the proposals with which I am associatedthe pension reform group proposalsI hope we will have an alternative that takes as a starting point the chance of a huge breakthrough in this debate, by uncoupling the question of how we deal with today's poor pensioners from the question of long-term reform. To a huge extent, pension credit has done that.
	We can therefore think genuinely about the long-term, which must be a funded provision. That, combined with the state pension, offers us a minimum pension that does not merely take means-testing for old people down to 30 per cent., but abolishes it for practically all. We ought to grasp that opportunity. We ought not to be concerned with moving the furniture about in a way that does not deliver that important objective. I ask other speakers in the debate to say, if they have time in their 10 minutes, to what extent their proposals aim for a future that ensures that all those who are part of any new reform will draw a minimum pension free of means-testing.

David Laws: This is a short debate on a big subject, although we have already had some good contributions, including the thoughtful one we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Given that we have only three hours, it is tempting to suggest that we should have more of these debates over the next few months and more time available for contributions, but we have had much consultation on pensions and pension reform, not only over the past year, but since the Government came to power in 1997.
	Many in the House and in the country are desperate to see some proposals from the Government that arrive on the promised time scale, so that we can get stuck into a meaningful debate knowing that there is a clear position on the part of the Government as a whole and that we will not be strung along for a long time before we get some half-baked, small-scale proposals that command the support of the various members of the Government.
	I will make some relatively short comments on the broad aspects of the direction of pensions policy. I hope that, in time, the Government's own pensions policy will turn up so that everybody, including outside groups, can engage seriously in the debate.
	I join the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) in congratulating Lord Turner on his contribution to the debate in his excellent and well thought through report. Liberal Democrat Members strongly agree with some of his principal conclusions, including his view that the existing pension system
	is not fit for purpose looking forward,
	that
	the current state system will deliver increasingly inadequate and unequal results
	and that
	significant future growth of means-testing would . . . undermine voluntary private pension saving by the very groups of people . . . most in danger of under-provision.
	Lord Turner's report was a powerful indictment of the future direction of Government pension policy. It clearly shows that, in his view and in that of the other commissioners, a fairly significant change will be needed if we are to have a pension system that the country can rely on in the decades ahead.
	I welcome the contributions that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made to the debate. They have been modest and hedged with various conditions, but on the whole what I hear from him is promising, as is what I hear from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was rather quiet when Lord Turner's report emerged and did not take any opportunities to get involved in the rather sharp-edged debate that was going on between Lord Turner, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury. However, his speech to the CBI conference on 29 November will command broad support across the country. The Minister is no doubt aware of his comments, but I remind him of what he said:
	On any basis, we will need to spend more on retirement if there are more retired people.
	That is an obvious statement that does not seem to have hit home in the Treasury as yet. He went on:
	We need a system that enshrines a decent basic state pension, funded by the tax-payer; that allows top-ups in a way that is easy to save; a retirement age that begins, over time, to reflect the changing demographic reality; and a proper balance between the obligations of the employer, the employee and the state. And, of course, any reform has to be affordable.
	He also said:
	The basic construct of Turner is right; it addresses these requirements.
	We very much agree with the broad thrust of those comments and with the broad thrust of Turner, although there is immense detail, particularly in the proposals on the basic state pension architecture, that people will want to debate further. Lord Turner has done a good job, the DWP has, cautiously, done a good job, and the Prime Minister has, very cautiously, done a good job.
	It is tedious to have to go back to the issue that dominated Lord Turner's reportthe battle between the Treasury and Lord Turnerbut it is fair to say that the contributions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury to the pensions debate have not been very constructive. In particular, they have confused the issues of affordability, which any Treasury will be concerned about, and sustainability, which those who design the state pension system must be concerned about. At the moment, we have an affordable system that is not sustainable. Unless the Chancellor can hold both those concepts in his mind at the same time, we will have a problem. It is significant that, after Lord Turner's report was published, he had to publish a document rebutting Treasury allegations about his figures entitled, Sanity in Figures. When The Daily Telegraph asked him in an interview on 3 December whether it followed that he believed that some of the briefing by the so-called Brownites was insane, he replied:
	Yes . . . The Treasury has a legitimate role in looking at the cost implications . . . but we have to have a sensible debate about the figures.
	He is right.
	We must hold a sensible debate about the point that the Prime Minister made gently in his speech to the CBI conference when he mentioned that our pensioner population will increase by approximately 50 per cent. in the next three or four decades. Yet the Government forecast that the amount of gross domestic product that goes into the state pension architecture will remain roughly stable. As the Pensions Commission has pointed out for months, that can only mean pensioners becoming significantly poorer compared with the rest of the population.
	It is unrealistic to believe that any party, let alone the Labour party, would allow pensioners at the bottom of the pile to fall behind the rest of the population by ceasing to link means-tested benefits to average earnings and reverting to prices. No Labour Member seriously believes that any Government would entertain that option for long.
	We are left with several key issues. We must consider what to do with the basic state pension architecture. Our view is similar to that of the Prime Minister and Lord Turner: there should be a much better and simpler basic state pension. There is a big debate to be held about its nature, how women are dealt with, whether it is a citizens pension and whether the contributory principle will be respected. However, the basic principle is a much simpler state pension that everybody can understand and that lifts people out of poverty. The Government's job is to fund that properly to ensure that people can rely on it. We need as much consensus as possible across the political spectrum so that it lasts.

Frank Field: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman says that lifting people out of poverty should be our goal. Given the generosity of pension credit, there is a huge hurdle to surmount if one is considering only a tax-financed retirement pension. Is he committing the Liberal Democrats to only a tax-financed basic state pension or is he considering both tax and funded provision?

David Laws: I am talking about a tax-financed basic state pension. The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough in the subject to know that there are several different methods of delivering that. Some try to tackle the issues that the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, including fairness, given the limited resources.
	A better funded basic state pension or citizens pension requires better methods of funding it. We must not only consider the transition from our current position to where we want to be but seek savings elsewhere in our pension system and in public expenditure. That is why the amount of money that goes into public sector pensions is so crucial. The Government imply that we cannot possibly put more money into the current basic state pension architecture because that is unaffordable. Yet the cost of public sector pensions has increased and is projected to rise by 50 per cent. as a share of GDP in the next few decades.
	If it is impossible to find the money for the basic state pension architecture, it is odd that the Government are allowing the cost of public sector pensions to increase so rapidly. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead knows, the controversial proposals that have recently been agreed between the public sector unions and the Government make a small contribution to reducing the cost in the next few decades. We believe that any Government will eventually need a version of the Turner report that must tackle public sector pension reform. We appreciate that that is controversial but fundamental reform is unthinkable without objective analysis.
	As Lord Turner hinted heavily in his report, although he was not allowed to examine the issue in detail, the current level of pension right accrual is deficient in total and increasingly unequal. His main target was clear.

John Penrose: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is something unexpected about the Government's apparent commitment to final salary schemes in the public sector, given that Lord Turner has said that the people who end up on high final salariestypically the few most senior people in a final salary schemewill have paid the smallest percentage of their lifetime earnings to achieve their final pension payment? That does not seem entirely fair and I am surprised that more Labour Members have not picked that up.

David Laws: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government have obviously tried to address that to some extent by looking at career averaging. However, in some public sector schemesnot all, in fairness; the local government scheme is clearly not comparable with some of the othersthe effective contribution rates, which after all involve the taxpayer, are many multiples of what we see in defined contribution schemes, and even double some of the defined benefit schemes in the private sector. I would have thought that many people, even in the public sector, understood that unfairness. Of course they want to see decent pensions in the public sector, but they understand that we cannot rely solely on the taxpayer to pick up the bill. People in the public sector, including Members of Parliament, might have to decide whether they want to receive a less generous pension or to make larger contributions to their pension to ensure that it can be delivered.

James McGovern: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that pensions, particularly occupational pensions, are in effect deferred wages, and that any proposed changes to pension schemes should be introduced only after negotiation with the appropriate trade unions and with the full agreement of the scheme's members?

David Laws: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are major issues involved and that remuneration needs to be looked at as a package. Often, however, the better pension benefits in the public sector do not look as though they are simply compensating for lower pay, although that seems to be what most economic evidence suggests today. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there should be negotiation on these matters.
	Whenever I have discussed these issues with people in my constituency who work in the public sector, I have found that they are far more grown up than we assume. They understand that there are no blank cheques to be signed in this regard. Many of them, including people in the local government scheme, have suggested that they should be paying higher employee contributions. They ask why employee contributions have not risen over time, even though people are living longer. One of the mistakes that we make in politics is to treat people as though they are children who cannot understand these basic issues, but most people understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and that Governments of all parties have to grapple with these difficult issues.
	Another issue that needs to be looked at if we are to afford a better basic state pension architecture is the state pension age. The Government appear to have made a significant change in their policy in this area; I think I heard the Secretary of State say today that he thought an increase in the state pension age was inevitable. That is quite a striking change in Government policy from that of the Secretary of State's predecessor but one, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith)

James Plaskitt: Predecessor but two.

David Laws: I am most grateful to the Minister for updating me; it is difficult to keep up. I hope that I have not missed anything new today.
	The right hon. Member for Oxford, East had previously put it clearly on record that the Government opposed any increase in the state pension age. Some of the concerns about that came from the Treasury. I do not know whether, when the Secretary of State spoke today about the increase in the state pension age being inevitable, he was speaking on behalf of the Government with the support of the Treasury, or whether he was simply speaking on his own behalf.
	The right hon. Member for Birkenhead spent some time talking about the difficult issue of what any additional pension should be, if one were available in addition to the basic state pension or citizens pension. It is clear that no one would want simply to rely on a basic state pension in future, even if it were considerably higher and better than the state pension that people rely on today. We are still talking about a pension that would seek to protect people from poverty rather than to give them a life of luxury in retirement. We want most people not only to have access to the state pension but to have a second pension into which they put savings and to which their employer contributes. It would be right, particularly if we are to address the unfairnesses of the public sector scheme, to ensure that employees, employers and the state contribute to those second-tier pensions, although clearly that highlights particular issues for small businesses and others to which the Government will have to be sensitive. A partnership between those three seems to me to be sensible and the only way to get enough money in the pension pots of workers on low incomes to make a real difference.
	There are some massive issues here, which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead highlighted very clearly. He was concerned about the impact on defined benefit schemes. Frankly, my view is that defined benefit schemes, in the private sector at least, seem to be on the way out anyway because of the economics of such schemes. How will we manage the risk transfers involved? We are talking, potentially, about an enormous transfer of risk from the Governmentas we have seen many times, there is a risk in relying on themand from employers, who have not been able to handle this risk recently, towards individuals, many of whom are completely unprepared to handle risk of this type. Indeed, I dare say that most people are completely unprepared to handle it.
	I do not see many alternatives to transferring those risks to individuals and I think we will end up going in that direction whoever is in government, but I am under no illusion about people's preparedness to take on that responsibility. An enormous extension of financial literacy, starting from school, and of financial advice to people on low incomes is required. As the right hon. Gentleman correctly said, careful thought from the Government on maximising choice for those who want to be able to choose their second pension and structure it in a way that they, rather than the Government, think desirable is also required.
	Careful consideration is required to deal with the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised about risk and not ending up with people thinking that they have two Government-guaranteed pensions. The ingenious scheme proposed by Lord Turner must not be considered a Government-guaranteed second pension, because it is not that. No future Government could provide such a guarantee.
	Those are the major challenges that the Government have to address on pensions policy. I genuinely hope that we can find a consensus across parties that lasts rather longer than consensuses have in the past. The experience of the 1970s is not encouraging in looking at the period for which a consensus can be held together. This is a big challenge for the Government, as is seeking consensus internally first. I look forward to the timein the promised couple of months I hope, although such periods tend to expand, as we see with the Child Support Agencywhen we have the opportunity to hear the Government's proposals and to know that they are agreed across the Government. Then we can engage in a serious debate, knowing that something will come out of it.

Terry Rooney: We on the Select Committee had the pleasure of the company of Lord Turner and John Hills at our hearing on 14 December. I want to give a word of warning to any Members who intend to invite Lord Turner to a meeting: they will find a man who is sincere, passionate and knowledgeablehe can recite reams of his report without notesbut extremely loquacious. If the meeting is for one hour, allow two.
	The key thing with Turner is that the analysis is superb, but the problems come with the solutions he offers. I do not think I am breaking any secrets when I say that I chaired a parliamentary Labour party meeting about a month ago where 31 people were present and 28 different solutions were on offer. That is the situation we are going to be in.
	There is such a wide range of ways out in terms of how Turner analyses things and I am intrigued, but also concerned, by the use of the word consensus. Who are we aiming to get consensus with and between? Is it with and between men and women, because that has never been there before? Is it between young and old? Is it between contributors and beneficiaries? Is it between the public and private sectors? Is it between professionals and manual workers? Let us not forget that if we move at some time to a retirement age of 69, a less than academically gifted child who leaves school at 16 will have to work for 53 years. A professional person, however, will have a working life of around 40 years. That is a huge difference in terms of retirement age.
	Consensus between the various parties in the House is the most dangerous consensus of all. In 1975, we had that consensus across all parties in the House including the Scottish National party, and it lasted five years. With the best will in the world towards Opposition Members, it is an absolute betrayal to pretend that they agree with something and will stand by it should there be a change of Government. That is a pretence and a sham. The consensus needs to be among the public, consumers and those most affected by the issue, not between the Government and Opposition Benches.
	There is no doubt that there is a crisis of confidence among consumers about the pensions and savings industry. Often, that crisis of confidence is used by individuals to justify not doing something that they had no intention of doing in the first place. We must recognise, however, that there have been successive broken promises, mainly by Governments but also by financial institutionschanges to the state earnings-related pension scheme, pensions mis-selling, low-cost endowment policies

Philip Hammond: 5 billion.

Terry Rooney: There was 13 billion lost in pensions mis-selling. The hon. Gentleman should just grow up.

Philip Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Terry Rooney: No.
	That lack of confidence is reinforced daily by various financial scandals in all sorts of spheres, not necessarily involving pensions and savings. Every time that someone sees a financial scandal, whether it is credit cards being ripped off on the internet or whatever, that loss of confidence is reinforced. Any measure brought forward by Governmentthis is where I take great exception to what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) saidmust therefore carry some form of Government-backed guarantee to people that any scheme that they enter into will not take away their money, and that they will not find out at 59 or 64 that the pension that they thought they had saved for has disappeared. Should we finish up with a model along the lines of the national pension savings scheme, it needs to be managed by a body such as National Savings and Investments, which has credibility and is semi-autonomous but has the backing of Government.
	We can contract out investment management. I have been heavily lobbied, as, I am sure, many other Members have been, by the Association of British Insurers, the National Association of Pension Funds and others who are just vested interests scared stiff that if NPSS or anything similar comes about, they will lose business. They have little concern for the individual and the consumer, and are much more concerned about what is happening to their business. Within the benchmarks and costings, however, they can bid against anyone else for the investment management programme.
	We need to be honest with people, and I suspect that the only source of such cost-free advice is Government. We need to be honest with people in different income bands about what is definitely right for them, and what is definitely wrong for them.

Nigel Waterson: Has the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee given any thought to what consumer protection and regulatory framework should apply to NPSS if it is set up in that sort of form?

Terry Rooney: That is the voice of the independent financial adviser, which I have heard many times in the past few days.

Nigel Waterson: What did he say?

Terry Rooney: The hon. Gentleman should let me finish. He has not been listening.
	Such advice would be along the lines of what is definitely in and definitely out for people in different income bands. For instance, anybody on less than about 13,000 should be in the state second pension and nothing else. People on more than 30,000 to 35,000 will always take care of themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) referred earlier to the 55 per cent. of tax relief that goes to 10 per cent. of earners. People in that income band are mad not to invest in pensions.
	The big gaps are between those who are below the lower earnings limitlargely womenwho are excluded, the self-employed, and those whose annual incomes are between 13,000 and 30,000. They are the people who have opted out. Ironically, they have reached the conclusionby whatever convoluted meansthat they need not be involved in the pensions system. That is silly. It is stupid and irrational. But would those people take any notice of a financial adviser who would charge them anything between 150 and 600? Under the current system, pensions are not bought; they are sold. No one wakes up in the morning and says I will buy a pension today. Pensions are sold, through a friend, a contact or an advertisement. It is usually an accident, in that no one decides to buy a pension.
	I hope that my colleagues in the Government will forgive me for saying that if the Government can give advice on animal welfare and how to look after cats, on how to wear slippers and on how to be safe going in and out of the shower, they can surely give some responsible advice on pension products.
	I do not think we can ignore the fact that owing to changes made last year following the Pensions Act 2004 and the Finance Act 2005, we are giving higher-paid earners up to 600,000 in tax relief. That can never be part of the mantra The many, not the few. The issue will keep coming back, as will the issue of contracted-out rebates, which time prevents me from exploring. Those are big issues, which the Government will have to address. We will certainly examine them during our Select Committee inquiry this summer.

Quentin Davies: In the new mode or fashion, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond)who made an excellent and extremely well-informed speechwas very emollient and kind to the Government. I think I have a reputation in this place for calling a spade a spade, and I will live up to that. People must be remindedand I reminded my constituents at the last election, although I may have been the only Conservative to do sothat since 1997 the Government have presided over nothing less than a dramatic and systemic pensions disaster.
	In 1997 we had the strongest pensions system in western Europe, together with The Netherlands, and one of the strongest and soundest in the world.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: I cannot, because of the time constraint. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
	What has happened to the system since then? A third of the defined-benefit schemes that were operating in 1997 have closed altogether, and another third have closed to all new entrants. The same is true throughout the voluntary pensions sector. Let me quote from page 2 of the Turner report, no less. It states that
	voluntary private pension provision is not growing: rather it is in serious and probably irreversible decline.
	That is a terrible indictment of a Government who should have regarded the maintenance, indeed strengthening, of our pensions system as an elementary, fundamental responsibility when they came to power.
	Far from being prudent, as he likes to say that he is, the Chancellor has behaved with reckless irresponsibility. In 1997, the stock market was doing very well. The Chancellor thought Fine: the stock market will go on for ever doing so well that it will be able to absorb not just the costs of increasing longevitythe actuarial costs that will be borne by these schemesbut another 5 billion a year in gratuitous tax. Of course, he was completely wrong.
	The Government have compounded that with further mistakes. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned the regulatory regime, and the perversity of forcing pension funds to move from equities to gilts

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: I really cannot. It is not my fault that we are subject to these time restrictions.
	It is perverse to force pensions funds to move from equities to gilts. The only way that one can have a decent return on a pension fund, which is by definition a long-term investment, is by being substantially in equities.
	The Government's attempts to do something about that have been completely mishandled and misconceived. As I predicted when I was pensions spokesman for my party in the 1997 Parliament, the stakeholder pension did not work because it was running against the enormous weight of the extension of means-testing. That meant that, for people on modest incomes, it made no sense to go into a voluntary pension scheme. That is the fatal flaw in so many of the Government's calculations and so much of what they have been saying tonight, although it is no doubt well-intentioned. It will not work in those circumstances.

Edward Miliband: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: Of course not.
	I calculated when I was pensions spokesman that, if one saved 100,000 a year in one's pension fund, one would gain no benefit at all. The result would be an annuity of about 4,000 a year, about the amount that one would lose in means-tested benefits such as the minimum income guarantee system, including housing benefit and council tax relief.
	Those amounts have greatly increased. One probably has to save 150,000 a year before one even starts to make a return. That means that, if one saves 300,000 a year, one will get half the market returnhalf what one should expect for the sacrifice of consumption and for the risk. If one saves 500,000 or more, it is worth it but, by definition, that can interest only a small minority of our population. That is a fatal flaw that is not recognised in Turner. That is why I want to emphasise the point this evening.
	What is the solution? Again, we have too little time to get into the subject, but let me set out four points that will be essential in any solution. First, we must maintain the contributory principle. The Government's emphasis on responsibility means nothing if we get rid of the contributory principle. That is why I strongly disagree with Turner on such matters as making the state retirement pension residential by qualification, rather than contributory.

Several hon. Members: rose

Quentin Davies: Secondly, most importantly, we must reduce means-testing in our social security system. The indexation must be reversed. It is economically perverse and an insult to

David Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am wondering whether it is really a point of order but I will allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed.

David Taylor: Can you advise whether, in this debate, as in most such debates, one-minute injury time is allowed for an hon. Member to accept an intervention?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. We well know the rules of the House, but the main thing is that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has a right to refuse to give way. That is his privilege.

Quentin Davies: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I like to give way when I can but the answer to questions on a complicated matter such as pensions can take longer than the extra time that is available. I have now lost about 25 seconds, of course, so well done to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor).

Mr. Speaker: I will give the hon. Gentleman injury time.

Quentin Davies: Bless you, Mr. Speaker.
	Means-testing must be reduced and indexation must be reversed. It is both perverse economically and insulting to those who save to say that a less favourable regime will be applied to savings when one is working and contributing to a pension than when one has a means-tested, non-contributory pension. In my view, one cannot do anything about a second pension going above the basic state retirement pension until the contributory pension, if one is entitled to the maximum pension, is higher than the means-tested tax credit, pension credit or whatever one wants to call it. Only from that point on would it not be mis-selling to force people into a second-tier pension.
	Thirdly, on that basis, we should go for compulsion. It is reasonable to do so. It is actually essential because there are enormous external costs in not having universal saving; people tend to fall back on the state unduly. That must be covered. There are also enormous internal costs in any pension scheme if it has to be distributed and sold. If we have compulsion, we will get rid of the major cost element in the pension industry: the cost of marketing, distribution and administration, which is very great if there is a voluntary system. I do not believe that the funds should be in the hands of the state. I believe that they should be in the private sector.
	The best model that I have come across is the Australian superannuation scheme. That scheme introduced compulsory contributions by both employers and employees very gradually, and we should adopt the same approach. The process in Australia took about 15 years, and no single increase in contribution amounted to more than 1 or 2 per cent. of salary, for either the employer or the employee.
	If employers are told that they have to set aside 1 per cent. of their wage bill for contributions in one year, with the same amount to be so allocated in the following year or the year after, they can often take that amount out of the increases in wages or salaries that they would grant in that period. In that way, compulsory contributions can be phased in without creating problems.
	The Government and the Turner commission are alive to the fact that problems must not be created for employers, especially for those with small businesses. Such problems can drive people out of business or so raise the cost of labour that demand for it is reduced and unnecessary unemployment is created. The Australians have shown how that circle can be squared to a remarkable degree. Turner has in mind a scheme that would yield about 15 per cent. of beneficiaries' salaries by way of a second pension, but I think that we should be much more ambitious.
	I have set out my four basic approaches, but there are more than 600 Members of this House and I accept that there will be at least 500 pet schemes to solve the problem. That is why I reiterate my earlier appeal for another opportunity to debate this matter. Moreover, the subject of pensions deserves a full-day debate. We should not require it to be shared with another big issue of the day, even one as dramatic and exciting as the one on which we spent so much time this afternoon.

Jim Cunningham: I was interested to hear the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), say that he wanted to break the consensus evident in the Chamber in this debate. That was in direct conflict with the comments of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond).
	One of the problems with Turner is the way in which pension schemes will be funded. If compulsion is chosen, what happens if someone loses their job? We have been here before. The Crossman proposals of 1969 or 1970 introduced expanded social services in this country, and proposed the introduction of SERPS. Conservative Governments since then have always wanted to move away from the SERPS system.
	As I have told the House before, I used to work at Rolls-Royce. The previous Conservative Government encouraged people to opt out of SERPS and go into private pension schemes. That caused all sorts of problems. People would have what used to be called pension holidays, when money that should have gone into their pension scheme did not do so. Moreover, it is important to remember that many occupational pension schemes formed part of the wage deals agreed by millions of people, some of whom have retired and some of whom are still in employment.
	For example, people might have put in for a wage increase of 5 per cent. and settled for 3 per cent. The difference of 2 per cent. was either put into the pension or took the form of additional holidays. Many people enjoyed the benefit of that, but sadly the practice has disappeared over the past 20 years or so, mainly due to the activities of the previous Conservative Government.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend makes it clear that pensions are often part of an overall wage deal. Does he agree that that is especially true in the public sector? A substantial number of people with public sector pensions earn wages that are significantly below average, in the expectation that they will be compensated by a reasonable pension at the end of their working lives. Does my hon. Friend know why the Opposition attack that approach?

Jim Cunningham: I was about to elaborate on that very point. The public sector includes the civil service, and the Government have been attacked for the deal that they made in that regard. However, we do not know how local government pension schemes will be funded, and that is a major problem.
	I am conscious of the terms of reference for this debate, and do not want to digress too far, but in Coventry the problem of equal status has been around for seven or eight years and still has not been settled. Local authorities will be confronted by both issuespensions and equal statusbut they will receive no assistance to deal with them.
	Only 17 per cent. of women have an occupational pension or a SERPS pension. Many of them have brought up a family and found, for a variety of reasonsin some cases, their husband has diedthat they are not entitled to a pension. That is one of the reasons for pensioner poverty and why I welcome the fact that one of the first things that this Government did was to tackle that. It would have been criminal to leave those 3 million pensioners in the state that they were left in by the previous Government.

Edward Miliband: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been insufficient recognition in this debate so farcertainly by Opposition Membersof the significant gains that have been made in terms of pensioner poverty? If we followed the advice of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and reversed indexation, we would put all those pensioners back into poverty, which would be an absolute scandal.

Jim Cunningham: That occurred to me, too. Some people have been unpaid carers for people with disabilities or serious illness, and they lose out on pension rights. We also have the scandal of Federal-Mogul. Many people in Coventryand some in Derbyshireworked for that company but they cannot get their occupational pensions because the money is trapped in the American courts. When that is sorted out, the issue has to come back to the British courts, because Federal-Mogul has gone into liquidation. What should we say to those people when we ask them to contribute to private pension schemes?
	I am a little old-fashioned, but I believe in a decent state pension. After we have got that, we can debate whether it should be linked to earnings or something else. It is not easy to achieve and will probably take some time, but it is one of the problems that we will have in implementing Turner.
	Other hon. Members have mentioned the mis-selling of pensions. Opposition Members have poured scorn on the pension protection scheme, but at least this Government had the courage to set it up. We should ensure that there is less bureaucracy in the scheme and that the figures are accurate. The scheme also needs to be talked up.
	The Opposition strategy is obviousthey are blaming everything on the Chancellor because they know that the Prime Minister is standing down. However, the Opposition spokesman made a good point when he said that pension funds are also invested. They are invested in various schemes, in this country and throughout the world. If there is an economic downturn, as there is in the rest of the world, pension schemes will suffer. We have to be careful that we are not in a Catch-22 situation.
	This issue has been around for some 47 years now. We have had many debates and I look forward to many more, especially on Turner. We will see whether the Chancellor is rightit has not yet been proved that he put the blockers on Turner. A wise man would advise waiting until we decide which of Turner's recommendations we will pick. It is natural for the Chancellor to say that we will make an announcement on how we will implement the scheme at the appropriate time. The Opposition speculate about what he will say, but they do not know. As I said earlier, their attacks on the Chancellor are purely political in an attempt to discredit him. We have all read the insulting remarks that the Opposition have made about the Chancellor. However, if they want any consensus on the issue, they will have to bite the bullet as much as anybody else.
	There are many issues involved in pensions, including how to fund care for people as they get older. Some pensioners have to delve into their savings to pay for that. I remember when funeral benefits were withdrawn. We have to address a range of matters, not only pensions. We must stop paying lip service and merely saying how much we value our pensioners; we must do something about a decent pension and decent care in old age.

Peter Viggers: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), I did not approach the debate in a particularly consensual mood. I have a declared interest in relation to the pensions industry. Although the pension fund of which I am chairman is well funded and robust, it brings me into contact with a wide range of people in the pensions field, so I know of the distress and difficulty caused to them and to the employees of their companies by the difficulty in which the industry has been put.
	Currently, a large number of people can live with some dignity in retirementthe high proportion of people who retired on final salary pensions. However, I do not share the sturdy optimism that seems to permeate the Turner report and I fear for the future pensions of people in their 30s and 40s. The situation will deteriorate, and badly.
	Why? I have heard some people simplistically blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the impost of 5 billion a year on the pensions industry in 1997, but that does not put things into the correct context. The causes of this massive crisisthe shortfall of funding in the pensions industryare more varied. The Association of Consulting Actuaries has estimated the deficit at 130 billion. That is a massive deficit and it is difficult to see how it can be overcome. Its first cause is longevity.
	For continuous mortality investigationCMIactuaries normally use the mortality tables of the 92 series, which means that they are basing mortality estimates on the period from 1991 to 1994. They will not be using the 00 series, which covers 1999 to 2002, until much later; indeed, that series will not even be published until the late spring of 2006. The difference in projecting tables forward is dramatic. Forward projections using the 92 tables, making the assumptions on which the 00 tables are basedeven those are not fully up to datewould be that a 60-year-old man in 2006 would live to between 85 and three quarters and 92 and three quarters, with a central assumption of 88 and three quarter years. That is one and a quarter to eight and a quarter years more than the previous central assumption of four and three quarter years. In case anyone writes to me after the debate saying that the sums do not add up, I point out that they are actuarial figures not arithmetical ones. The numbers are dramatic and they throw out of gear most of the previous calculations.
	The second cause of the shortfall was stock exchange weakness, which has led to a rush into gilts. The gilts yield has gone down, thereby increasing the problem of covering projected pension costs, because of asset liability modelling.
	Thirdly, FRS 17 accounting standards have caused companies to include pensions in their general accounts. Fourthly, the ACA says that the increasing regulation and cost of pension fund administration causes a considerable burden. Fifthly, there is the unreality of  final salary schemesdefined benefitsand unsustainable benefits. To a certain extent, we all lived in a fool's paradise in the 1980s and 1990s, failing to realise that the aspirations of those who were due to retire could not be sustained.
	Finally, there is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in 1997 failed to see the weakness of the pensions industry and kicked the patient downstairs. A range of measures were taken in the 1997, of which the then Financial Secretary said,
	this should benefit all investorsincluding pension funds.[Official Report, 7 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 766W.]
	In fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed a 3 billion charge on pension funds and actuaries took account of that; they factored it in and adjusted their figures accordingly, so 3 billion a year has been taken out of the pensions industry since 1997, which has caused this massive crisis.
	What are the problems to be faced? First, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who spoke from the Front Bench, made the fair point that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must accept that the solution to the pensions crisis will cost public funds a great deal of money. When I first became involved in the pensions industry, I used to take a factor of 18 to multiply the amount that would be needed to generate a pensionso to generate a pension of 10,000 a year, for instance, one would need a fund of 180,000. Now I take a factor of 24 to 26. It would take 240,000 to 260,000 to generate a pension of 10,000 a year. There is no such thing as a cheap pension.
	Secondly, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) in saying that, having considered the matter carefully, there is no alternative to compulsion. I cannot understand how we can succeed in persuading enough people to go in for the amount of pension that is needed without compulsion. That leads me to the third point: incentives or means-testing.
	A couple of days ago, we who serve on the Treasury Committee had before us witnesses who gave evidence about the corrosive effect of means-testing. We were told that means-testing does not really have much effect on savings, because the people involved in means-testing would not bother to save anyway. In fact, means-testing has a corrosive effect, and we cannot continue with the present rate of means-testing. The percentage of pensioners on means-testing is now rising well above 50 per cent. and approaching 60 per cent. That is totally unsustainable. We must therefore have incentives.
	The next point is defined benefits, and I accept with reluctance that defined benefits are now dated. It is most unusual for someone to start with a firm and stay with that employerunless it is the public sectorfor two or three decades. I therefore accept that defined contributions are the logical way ahead, but it is also a fact that employers have tended to put 12 to 15 per cent. of employees' wages into defined benefit schemes, whereas the amount going into defined contributions schemes will be much lower6 to 7 per cent. or thereabouts and sometimes as low as 4 per cent.
	The fifth point that we must face is the private-public gap. It is natural for those in the public sector to wish to hold on to their pension advantages and their great advantage of having the benefit of early retirement. Ministers have made much of the fact that the public sector will save 13 billion from adjustments to the age of retirement; but, in fact, that is a 13 billion adjustment between people who are fortunate enough to be on the escalator of earlier retirement and those who are unfortunate enough to come in later. That is most unfair.
	My sixth point is the Pension Protection Fund. I recently attended a meeting with the regulator, David Norgrove, who was very charming, competent and capableI wish him wellbut the massive burden that the PPF will impose on business has been widely misunderstood and underestimated. It will be a major problem, and the classification of companies, which will cause some to pay many times more than others, will cause immense disadvantages and difficulties. It will drag down bad companies and, finally, it will drag down good companies. I fear that, in the medium term, the PPF will impose a burden on private sector companies that is simply not understood at the moment.
	In summary, I accept the main thrust of the Turner commission. First, I agree that there should be a new earnings-related provisionit should be privateand I would not rule out the national pensions savings system. I suspect that such a system might well change its spots and evolve into something very different with time, so it deserves study. Secondly, the state pension must be reformed, with a consequent reduction in means-testing. Thirdly, everyone, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must accept that public expenditure on pensions will need to rise. Fourthly, the pension age must be addressed and, I think, raised. We need to face up to our problems. We need to be frank and open about the numbers and the problems, and I submit that Ministers have not always done so. We must encourage informed debate. That is the democratic way.

Vera Baird: The Government have recognised, in a way that the previous Government simply did not, that women suffer from serious pension inequality. I fear that nothing has changed because the   hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who opened the debate for the official Opposition, made not one single proposal for the 51 per cent. of pensioners who are women. Indeed, the only time the word woman crossed his lips was when he suggested that we should all profit from the fact that from 2020 women will work until they are 65. Women will not have missed the significance of that.
	Much praise has been lavished on Lord Turner, which I share, but I want to mention another member of the commission, Jeannie Drake. She played a key role in ensuring that women's difficulties with pensions were analysed with the intellectual rigour for which she is well known.
	Only 17 per cent. of women pensioners receive the full basic state pension of 84. The average woman receives 50, but that statistic hides the many women who have given a lifetime of service, such as Jennifer, who is my worker in Redcar. Jennifer was in full-time nursing and then cared full-time for two children, who are now highly productive citizens who have been nurtured exactly as we would want. She was then in part-time nursing and now she works part-time for me. For her lifetime of service, she has a basic state pension forecast of 28p a weekindex link that. No wonder the previous Secretary of State but oneI hope that I have got the numbers rightcalled the situation a national disgrace.
	If the basic state pension is a platform on which to build with one's savings, a lot of women are starting with something that is better characterised as a dark hole. That happens because the Beveridge system, which is in its dotage, or at least in serious need of multiple limb replacement, gives credit only for full-time paid work. Attempts to help women and carers have worked in only a half-baked way. Home responsibilities protection gives a sort of credit for every year that a mother is out of work and child rearing, but if she works for one week and earns more than the lower earnings limits so that she pays one national insurance contribution, she loses the whole credit and thus gets one contribution instead of the 52 that would be received under HRP. Two part-time job wages cannot be added up to bring a woman into the lower earnings limit so that she can make a contribution. If one wage is below the LEL, she can receive no credit. Many women in my constituency work as dinner ladies at lunchtimes and in convenience stores at night. Although they might work for 40 hours or more a week and look after kids as well, they get not a single credit towards their pensions.
	Carers who look after people who are ill or old get a credit towards their pensions only if they serve someone who is getting disability living allowance for 35 hours or more a week. If they care part-time for up to 34 hours a week, they get no credit at all, irrespective of the damage that that does to their ability to work. Those situations show why the position of many women is so poor.
	Women represent most pensioners, so let us face it for once that we must look at women first as a priority because if we get the situation right for them, we can get it right for everyone else. Labour market changes mean that 85 per cent. of women are likely to qualify for a full basic state pension by 2030. That figure is insufficient in itself and it hides many people such as Jennifer who do not want to work full-time because they want to concentrate on their children. Those people will never be ersatz Beveridge males in the form of modern females, so changes to the labour market will not put the problem right.
	There is no doubt whatsoever that Opposition Members criticise means tests because they fundamentally do not know about poverty. They do not understand how many people in my constituency are now living an acceptable life, but did not do so in their pensionable years before the pension credit came into play. Of course the basic state pension is the important platform and it must be elevated, but I am worried that although the Conservatives say that they would make the basic state pension better by index linking it, they would do so by uncoupling the pension credit from index linking. That would lead to women watching a basic state pension that they did not receive going up while the pension credit on which they were dependent was going down because it would be linked only to prices. They would thus go back into poverty.
	The Government now appreciate these problems and I am pretty satisfied that they are working hard to try to reconfigure the partial credits and the pension system so that more women and carers can be brought on to the basic state pension. That would mean that their caring was put on a par with working, which would be the right modern model. By making those adjustments, the Government will probably bring 95 per cent. of people into the basic state pension. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raised the question of affordability. The remaining 5 per cent. who will fall through the cracks of the improved credits will probably be poor, and will have be supported by the pension credit in any event. Does it make sense to undertake an elaborate reconfiguration of complex credits, or is it better to bring everyone into the basic state pension on the basis of residence? We would not sacrifice the contributory principle, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) suggested. I agree that people should get something for somethingand not something for nothingeven if that is a matter of perception rather than reality. The contributory principle can continue in connection with the second tier of the basic state pensionthe S2P. However it is configured, it can play a part in such an arrangement.
	Turner's realisation that the pension should be paid to individual men and women is overdue. I want the rewards of my caring, my working or my residency to be paid to me. I do not want one pension to be paid to my husband, along with a 60 per cent. pension that is my entitlement as a dependant. That is an outdated model of womanhood that no one wants and which works only for the diminishing numbers of married people. As a woman, I pay a full national insurance credit, and I receive a full basic state pension. A married man pays national insurance credit, just like me, but he receives 1.6 pensions, which is a double inequity for women. In addition, increasing numbers of unmarried women receive only the poor basic state pensions that I have set out.
	I applaud Turner's attempt to bridge the gap and help the poor make up for past poverty with his suggestion that we institute a universal basic state pension for everyone over 75. That excellent proposal will make up for past failures to some extent, but women will still suffer. If the Turner model is introduced in the two ways that I have set out, women who are halfway through their career would not receive credits for their past caring and part-time work. In future, they would be credited on residential grounds, but they would receive only half a pension because they would not be credited for their caring under the current rules. If those parts of the Turner report are implemented, it will be necessary to attend to those middle-aged women or a large number of female votes will be lost.
	This is a short debate, and mine is a small contribution. If there were more time I would talk about the need for an enhanced state contribution to the excellent and redistributive S2P. If we get basic state pension credits right, and if the criteria become residential, women who are carers will, almost by definition, be low-paid and less able to save, whatever improvements we make. They need more help from the tax system if they are to be able to save on top of their basic state pension. They need the help from the tax system which top earners receive but simply do not need. That, however, is a debate for another day. Women's state pension position is the last bastion of institutionalised sex discrimination in this country, and I hope that the White Paper will announce that it will change very soon.

Christopher Fraser: I offer the House an opinion:
	When Labour came to power we had one of the strongest pension provisions in Europe . . . and now we have some of the weakest.
	That is not my view, but the view of the former welfare reform Minister, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). A major cause of the crisis is the Government's decision in 1997 to remove the right of pension funds to reclaim dividend tax on the equities that they owned. That decision has created a loss of 5 billion, discouraged the country's savings culture and increased the spread of means testing.
	The Pensions Commission's first report in 2004 exposed a large hole in the country's private pension provision and funds. The Commission found that
	in 200203, 11.3 million people in work were not making contributions to any private pension scheme.
	To compound the problem, in recent years, many final salary company pension schemes have been wound up, as has been said. The Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme were introduced to address the problems relating to the winding-up of pension schemes. However, the Government's response to the crisis has been inadequate. The financial assistance scheme, which involves the payment of 400 million of public money over 20 years, is welcome, but with only 20 million a year, it cannot live up to the billing that the Government gave it, hence the narrow criteria for entitlement to assistance. The Government presented the FAS as an answer to many of the problems of pension scheme wind-ups. In raising expectations so high, it is inevitable that many people will be disappointed when they face the reality of the FAS.
	The Government also appear to be badly informed about the scale of the problem. In a written answer, they revealed that they do not know how many occupational pension schemes started winding-up in each year since 1997:
	Figures on schemes starting to wind up between 1997 and 2000 are not available as the register does not contain information on whether the schemes that started to wind up before 2000 started before or after 1997.[Official Report, 20 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1821W.]
	In a further written answer, the Government revealed that they do not know how many occupational pension scheme members face losses to their pension savings due to their schemes being wound up by their employers:
	We have not made any estimate of the total number of occupational pension scheme members who are facing losses to their pension savings due to their schemes being wound up by their employers.[Official Report, 21 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 2023W.]
	In recent years, we have also seen plenty of debate, but little action, on the reform of the local government pension scheme. Much of the contention has been focused on the 85-year rule. The system allows anyone whose age, added to their number of years of service, comes to 85 or more to retire on an unreduced pension, even if they have not yet reached the age of 65. Last year, the Government attempted to standardise the pension age by removing the rule. However, on 18 March 2005, faced with an imminent strike, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that he would revoke the regulations with retrospective effect.
	Local authority employers estimate that that U-turn cost councils an extra 450 million a year, and private businesses have complained about it bitterly. Private businesses are outraged by the high cost of protecting public sector pensions, while private sector pensions face increasing pressure. David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, has highlighted the disparity:
	  On the one hand, we have the private sector workforce being told it must work longer and put more money into their own pension pot, but here we have the public sector workforce who can still retire at 60.
	Sir Digby Jones, director general of the CBI, has also criticised the decision:
	This is a bad deal for the taxpayer. The government has capitulated to the threat of public sector strikes.
	The crisis was reignited last week after union leaders, fed up with the lack of progress in the resumed negotiations with local authority employers, decided to ballot members. The unions are seeking a similar deal to that agreed between Ministers and unions last autumn, under which the pension age for public sector workers would be raised to 65 for new recruits but kept at 60 for existing employees. Dave Prentice of Unison has warned:
	The local government employers, the LGA and the Government should be in no doubt of how serious we are . . . The clock is ticking, but there is a window of opportunity and I would urge everyone concerned to make the most of it.
	Long-term solutions are required. The people of this country want and deserve retirement security, and the Government must act quickly to deal with the issue.

Philip Dunne: I declare an interest, which is in the register. I am the director of an investment management company, which, while it is not directly involved in pensions, has some relevance to the debate.
	I welcome the debate and the Turner commission's contribution to it. The lack of attention to the pensions crisis, which has been growing over the past eight years, is one of the major failings of this Government. I am delighted that they now plan to make some proposals, which we will study with interest when they are released.
	I agree that there is a dire need to address the lack of savings in this country. The savings ratio has more than halved under this Government, from 9.3 per cent. in 1997 to 4.25 per cent. in 2004, according to the pre-Budget report. The UK has a substantially lower savings rate than our main European competitorsFrance, Germany and Italyall of whom have a rate in the range of 10 to 11 per cent. The Secretary of State referred to the level of under-saving; indeed, some 10 million people in this country are not saving. It is clear that this group in particular need to increase their level of saving in order to make some contribution to providing for their old age.
	My contention is that accelerating the means-testing of pension credit has significantly accelerated the disincentive to save that we have witnessed under this Government. I know that they do not agree with me because earlier this month, when I raised this issue with the Minister for Pensions Reform in this place, he said:
	There is very little evidence that means-testing, under the previous Government or this Government, has reduced saving on the part of pensioners, but since 1997 there has been much greater confidence in the economy . . . In 1992, when there was deep anxiety about the future of the economy, people saved more. Today they are more confident.[Official Report, 9 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 14.]
	Well, I am pleased that the Minister is here to respond and I urge him to read, if he has not already done so, the contribution of the Association of British Insurers. A report that it commissioned from the Personal Finance Society
	shows that means-testing is already starting to have a negative impact on public attitudes to saving and on the willingness of financial advisers to discuss saving with lower earners.
	In looking at Lord Turner's proposals, it is important that the Government are a bit more ambitious than Lord Turner has been in reducing the proportion of pensioners covered by the pension credit, given its means-testing nature. Currently, some 40 per cent. are on pension credit. That figure is supposed to come down by a mere 7 per cent., to 33 per cent., through the report's recommendations. I regard that reduction as insufficient if we are to change this country's savings culture.
	I invite the Government, in considering the report's recommendations, to address the issue of consumer protection, which was touched on by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The Secretary of State mentioned in his opening remarks the difficulties that the pension mis-selling problems of the past pose for the culture of saving and for the credibility of the pensions regime. I agree that they undoubtedly contributed to a lack of public confidence in pensions and in saving for retirement. I also agree with Lord Turner that introducing greater simplicity into the pensions industry is a desirable objective, but simplicity does not equal suitability. Means-testing, by definition, gives rise to the need for a suitability test. As we have heard, individuals will need to be willing and able to save a substantial amount of money to be confident of an adequate return in their retirementone that will exceed funds available from the state under the proposed arrangements.
	I raised this issue with Lord Turner when he appeared before the Select Committee last month. I asked him whether he had consulted the Financial Services Authority regarding the mis-selling risks associated with his proposed national pension saving scheme. He said:
	We have not directly consulted the FSA on this.
	I found that a very surprising response, given the diligence that he had shown in producing such a comprehensive report.
	Consumer protection is, I assume, of considerable concern to all hon. Members. I therefore urge the Government to address the issue when they consider Lord Turner's proposals. We all know of people across all income groups, particularly the lower paid, who, at various stages of their lives, have other commitments and are not in a position to set aside money to save. For those people, some element of consumer protection and advice should be available.
	Another problematic aspect of the national pension savings scheme is asset allocation. Who is to decide whether it is appropriate for some individuals to have their assets invested in predominantly fixed income returns, compared with equities? Other hon. Members referred to that earlier. It is difficult to produce a one-size-fits-all investment policy for the entire population. That is why I agree with other hon. Members who recommended a mixed approach. There may need to be some form of state-sponsored provider, but there must a role for private providers to come up with alternative schemes to allow choice. That again raises the question of suitability and advice. If suitability and consumer protection can be ignored, as Lord Turner suggests, is that appropriate Government policy? Does it not leave the Government exposed to the risk of mis-selling? It is a risk that the Government must consider carefully.
	In the remaining few minutes, I shall highlight specific issues relating to the NPSS. In the absence of compulsion, the combination of auto-enrolment and a very low cost offering will replace existing pension schemes. That is not just my view; it is the view of leading consultants in this area, Cazalet Consulting, who were quoted in the Financial Times earlier this week. I shall read one conclusion from their report on pensions profitability, which states that
	the Turner NPSS system, if implemented, would be likely to cause a surge in life company pension plan lapses as consumers move to take advantage of the very low proposed pricing levels. We doubt whether the NPSS could ever work as planned, however, as the best case persistency assumptions used in that report anticipate a dramatic improvement in persistency, which is at odds with the current reality of steadily deteriorating lapse rates.
	To put that in layman's language, the current average lapse rate of pension schemesboth individual and group corporate schemesis about 18 per cent. a year. In other words, 18 per cent. of people contributing cease contributing. In the Turner report that rate is estimated to be 10 per cent. a year, and the heroic assumption is made for the NPSS that the lapse rate will fall to 2.5 per cent. a year. That seems an ambitious assumption, to say the least. It raises the question whether employers will put pressure on employees to encourage opt-outs from a voluntary system, and whether it is feasible to achieve adequate investment management skills to manage funds on such a low commission basis. With a 30 basis-point charge, at least 22 per cent. would go in administration costs, which leave only eight basis points

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Peter Bone: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) on a powerful speech, especially his discussion of means-testing, which I shall touch on later. I came along to the debate tonight hoping that we would have a serious and constructive debate, and to a certain extent we have, but there was some tetchiness on the part of Government Members, perhaps because they lost two votes tonight.
	Perhaps the Secretary of State attacked the previous Conservative Government because he is a little concerned about the pensions crisis that this Government have created. They came to power in 1997, and it is now 2006. Having had their head in the sand for nearly 10 years, they have only just pulled it out and realised that there is a pensions crisis. However, I will try to keep my comments constructive. I know that the Minister is very fair. He replied graciously to a Westminster Hall debate on pensions income in Wellingborough that the Speaker kindly granted me.
	In 2001, I set up the Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden campaign because I believed that politicians of all parties had become a little arrogant, in that they were happy to preach at people and tell them what they thought, but reluctant to listen to what people were saying. I decided that through that campaign we would listen to what people had to say and then campaign for change based on their comments. My remarks will therefore relate to what people have been saying about pensions. There are more questions than conclusions.
	Let me start with last Saturday's surgery, when three firemen came to see me about public sector pensions, particularly their own pensions. Ultimately, their point was that there is not much joined-up government on that issue. The police, for example, have their pension scheme protected by the Government. As a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, I remember that when we looked into the Post Office, which has a 4 billion deficit on its pension scheme, its response was, Don't worrywe're a monopoly, so we can put the price of stamps up to recover it. There was no suggestion of altering its pension scheme in any way. However, the Government have changed the scheme for firemen so that certain firemen will have to work for an extra five years before they get their pension. The firemen who came to see me were not saying that there should be no change, but that the Government's approach is not even-handed.
	One of those gentlemen is caught in a trap. His pension retirement date is just a few days after what the Government have deemed to be the date of the change, so he will have to work for virtually five years longer than he had expected before he gets his pension. He has been paying 11.75 per cent. of his salary into pension contributions, which he regarded as a binding contract and part of his emoluments. He feels let down by the Government. He believes that they are being rather mean and that it is possibly to do with their trying to get back at the firemen for going on strike a few years ago. Can the Minister refute that by confirming that there is a joined-up approach to the way in which public sector pensions as a whole are being dealt with? People in the public sector would not mind if the approach was even-handed. They realise that there have to be changes to their pensions because people in the private sector are suffering a great deal.
	A few years ago, I was visited by a Mr. Martin Sterrowa pensioner in Wellingborough who had never before been involved in politics. He was outraged that his state pension was going up so little in comparison with his council tax. Hon. Members must be aware that Wellingborough has experienced the biggest increase in council tax since it was introduced. However, Mr. Sterrow could show that the increase in his council tax was more than that in his state pension. That cannot be right.
	I said that if there was a genuine problem perhaps we should hold a public meeting. We therefore arranged it, and I expected 10 or perhaps 20 people to attendI know how difficult it is to get people to public meetings. However, 100 people attended and they were outraged that their pension had not increased enough even to pay their council tax. That is not a criticism, but a fact that we must tackle.
	Mr. Sterrow organised petitions, a shadow Cabinet member came to the constituency and the shadow Cabinet received feedback. We also conducted a listening survey in which we contacted every home in Wellingborough. We asked people to specify the issues that affected them and we received thousands of responses. I thought that health or perhaps law and order would come top, but the main issues were council tax and pensions. I even asked for the results to be recounted because I was so surprised.
	That group of pensioners had never previously been involved in a political campaign. They were not Conservative or Labour but genuine constituents who were worried about the state of affairs. Of course, they did not want their council tax to increase by 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. year after year. However, the most striking point was that they wanted a decent basic state pension. They did not want freebiesthey did not necessarily want a winter fuel allowance[Interruption.] I repeat that they wanted a decent state pension so that they could decide how to spend their money. They did not want freebies and the Government telling them how to spend their money. I do not know what the answer is, but that was what they wanted.
	They were sure that they did not want means-testing, which they hate. Those people have paid all their lives through taxes and insurance premiums, yet when they collect their pension, which they perceive as a right not a benefit, they are asked to fill in forms and declare all their personal income so that they can have a bit more. They hate that and many pensioners will not take up the money because they do not want the indignity of means-testing. The previous Member of Parliament for Wellingborough said that one problem was millions of pounds in unclaimed pension credit. Why cannot that money simply be added to the basic state pension? That would be a start.

Danny Alexander: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that my constituents have similar feelings about means-testing? The Turner report states that if we continue with the current system, by 2050, 80 per cent. of pensioners will be subjected to means-testing in some form for their state benefits.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for that intervention. I thought that the figure was 75 per cent., but whether it is 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. it is ridiculous. The Minister for Pensions Reform and the Government probably agree that that is not acceptable.
	The pensioners of Wellingborough want a decent pension without means-testing. I appreciate that the Minister might say that the matter comes down to cost. The pensioners had a few ideas about that. Since the Government have been in power forin my opinion10 years, we have paid 100 billion through our taxes to the European Union. Some pensioners suggested to me that it might have helped if we had been a little less worried about French farmers and a little more concerned about pensioners. That is a huge amount of money. However, I know that the Minister will say that we cannot do anything about the EU.
	Let us therefore consider domestic savings. The TaxPayers Alliance says that 80 billion could be saved each year on Government waste. It gave a few interesting examples. The Government spent 225,000 on informing people not to wear ill-fitting slippers. They spent 40,000 on a 46-word definition of patients' experience in the NHS. That is nearly 1,000 a word. The best one is the 10,000 that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister wasted on whether fire engines should be red. What a waste of money. Yet 80 billion is wasted in such ways. Let us have a decent pension for our pensioners instead.

Nigel Waterson: I begin by declaring an interest, in that I have some private pension provision.
	This has been an unusually thoughtful debate on almost all sides of the Chamber. We had a thoughtful contribution from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), as one would expect, although I was a tad surprised by his apparent hostility to the Turner report and its central conclusions. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) was right to talk about the transfer of risk that is taking place in the pensions world. That was something that Lord Turner drew to our attention in both his reports.
	The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), made a somewhat eccentric argument against political consensus, which was odd for a Select Committee Chairman, but he developed some other interesting points. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made a red-blooded contribution to the debate. He had something to say about means-testing and is clearly not a consensus man.
	The hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) made an interesting and thoughtful contribution to the debate, as he always does. He recognised the importance of pension funds investing in equities. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers), who has great experience in real pensions issues, made some interesting points, particularly about longevity. I know all about that because I have a constituent, Mr. Henry Allingham, who will be 110 this year.
	The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) spoke powerfully, as she always does, about women's pensions. My hon. Friends the Members for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) spoke eloquently about how public sector pensions should be addressed by any responsible Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) made a thoughtful speech in which he examined issues relating to the proposed national pensions savings scheme, such as consumer protection and the regulatory framework. He rightly drew our attention to the thought-provoking comments in the Cazalet report, which was published only in the past couple of days.
	The Government have presided over the pensions crisis for something like nine years. In that time, they have taxed pensions, undermined savings by increasing means-testing and heaped ever more red tape, cost and bureaucracy on to companies with pension schemes. They came to office with the avowed policy of, rightly, changing the balance between public and private pensions from 60:40 to 40:60. They have failed signally in that ambition. The first pension reform Minister, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, was appointed to think the unthinkable, then promptly sacked for his trouble. He has said, memorably, that in 1997, the United Kingdom
	had one of the strongest pension provisions in Europe, and now probably we have some of the weakest.
	Two million pensioners are still living in poverty and figures released only today show that the take-up of pension credit is still extremely disappointing. In the last six months of 200304, it was in the range of 58 to 66 per cent. by caseload. That means that a very large number of people, many of whom I presume are women, are failing to claim their entitlement. In spite of more than eight years in power, the Government have done absolutely nothing about the scandal of women's pension entitlement, exceptI nearly forgotto publish an annual report to tell us how bad the problem is.
	The Government's flagship Pensions Bill, now the Pensions Act 2004, was introduced with great claims about how it would safeguard and encourage final salary schemes. The opposite has been the case. Final salary schemes are dead or dying. Most are already closed to new entrants; more and more are closing even to existing members. Recent examples include Rentokil and the Co-op. Experts such as the National Association of Pension Funds say that this is just the beginning.
	In a powerful article produced in the last few days, Mr. Steve Bee, head of pensions strategy at Scottish Life, put it like this:
	It's simply a question of when and how the end will come, not if it will come . . . Final salary pension schemes in the private sector have got smoke coming out of the backthey're not going to make it back to the airfield.
	The clearest and most pressing injustice is to those who lost all or most of their pension when their company schemes wound up with insufficient assets. We are talking about up to 85,000 people. Despite being unveiled as long ago as May 2004, the financial assistance scheme has only just started to make payments to people in trouble, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). Yesterday, the Minister was good enough to confirm that, so far, a grand total of 15 individuals in only one scheme have received payment. It is a scandal that it is taking so long. That is just adding insult to injury.
	Everyone except the Government recognised long ago that the sums devoted to the FAS are hopelessly inadequate. Even if the money holds out for the time being, the FAS is paying significantly lower benefits than the Pension Protection Fund. Those honest and decent people, some of them facing penury, are being treated as second-class citizens. As if the Government have not troubles enough, they are on the receiving end of a case in the European Court of Justice and an ombudsman's investigation.
	As the House has heard, we have fairness as one of our guiding principles in pensions reform, as do the Government, but if that is so, how can they possibly begin to justify the sweetheart deal they recently struck with the union bosses? Surely a key aspect of fairness is that the public and private sectors should be treated similarly, yet private sector workers would be lucky to find a final salary scheme to join. Not so public sector workers. That is not only patently unfair, and seen to be so by a lot of people out there, but it has seriously undermined attempts by responsible private sector employers to maintain their pension schemes. Attempts by such employers to agree changes to entitlements with their workers, which would make the schemes more sustainable in the long run, will be much more difficult to make, as workers look to the precedent set for public sector employees.
	Nor can we be encouraged by the Government's initial reaction to the Turner report. They sought to rubbish it before it was even published. The Chancellor warned Lord Turner that
	'you should not assume' that the current link of the pension credit to earnings 'will continue beyond 2008'.
	The report has been drawn into trench warfare within the Government.
	It has even been suggested that the Chancellor has already decided to snaffle the 10 billion a year saving on equalising women's pension age for other purposes. Surelythis, perhaps for the first time in our political relationship, is something that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar and I can wholeheartedly agree onthat money should, in all fairness, be earmarked for improving pensions, particularly if, over a relatively short period, we are to ask women to move from a state pension age of 60 to one of 67, 68 or even higher.
	Finally, as is so often the case, our underlying principles on pension reform are not very different from the Government's stated objectives. It would be unthinkable, as the Secretary of State has acknowledged, to implement reform based on Turner without a broad measure of social and political consensus. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has made it clear today that he is looking for such consensus. We call on the Government to involve us closely in the process. We have much to contribute. By the time the effects of any reforms, or indeed of a failure to act, are felt, several different Governments will have come and gone, and many different Ministers. As we saw earlier this evening, Governments can lose votes. Governments can lose elections. We are every bit as keen as they are to see a lasting and durable solution to the pensions crisis that will deliver fairness as well as dignity and security in old age for all our citizens.

Stephen Timms: I want to thank all those Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate for their thoughtful and constructive contributions.
	There has been general agreement that the Pensions Commission has done an impressive job. It sifted a great deal of evidence, spoke to a wide range of people, weighed a great variety of opinions and carried out some impressive analysis of its own. As we have been reminded, there were three commissionersa former director-general of the CBI, Lord Turner, last year's president of the TUC, Jeannie Drake, who was mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), and a distinguished social policy academic at the London School of Economics, John Hills. In producing a unanimous well-thought-through report, addressing all the issues that people have been raising, they have done us an enormous service. We should put on record our thanks to them. They have succeeded in pushing the subject dramatically up the public agenda, causing many more people to reflect on these questions, thereby helping build momentum for reform. That opens up the chance of an enduring pensions settlement for the UK, which we all agree would be an enormous prize.
	At the start of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out the priorities for pension policy that we identified in 1997. We have dramatically reduced the extent of pensioner poverty, particularly through the introduction of pension credit in 2003, with especially large gains among older womenperhaps one of the most important of all the big social improvements that we have seen since 1997. He was right to make the point that that has made a big change to the landscape, which opens up new possibilities for pensions reform. We have taken steps to bolster confidence in occupational pensions through the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme.

Quentin Davies: It is a pleasure to debate pensions with the Minister again after all these years. When he says that the pension credit has taken a lot of older people out of poverty, he is absolutely right, but does he see it as a one-off achievement, as I do? Do we not now need to return to a rational system in which the means-tested pension does not rise at a faster rate than the contributory pension? Or does he consider that this means-testing must go on

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, interventions must be brief.

Stephen Timms: I certainly do not agree that we should return to the arrangement whereby large numbers of single pensioners were living on 69 a week. Were we to go back, that would be the position. At the moment, every single pensioner is entitled to an income of at least 109.45 per week, and the Turner report proposes that auto-enrolling people into the national pension savings scheme will enable them to build up savings and a pension, which, over time, would reduce the extent of means-testing. We certainly must not, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was calling for, go back to the time when large numbers of people were on extremely low incomes. I, too, am delighted to be debating these matters with him again. His earlier contribution took me back to 1999.
	We have introduced the state second pension, greatly boosting the savings of those on low incomes and carers. We have also introduced stakeholder pensions, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of which there are 2.5 million, making an important contribution and enabling people who could not save economically in the past to do so.
	We now have a foundation that opens up the chance of an enduring pensions settlement for the UK. I hope that the optimism expressed across the Chamber today will be fulfilled over the next few weeks as we move towards proposals for reform and a consensus about what we should do.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was right to draw attention to Lord Turner's statement that there was no immediate crisis for pensioner incomes. I think he was trying to make out that there was a crisis, but I believe that Lord Turner was right.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to a constructive contribution on his party's behalf. He asked a question about something that he has mentioned to me a couple of times, about which I know he has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He wanted to know whether he and his colleagues could have access to PenSim2. He will have a response from my right hon. Friend tomorrow. I believe that the position is not entirely straightforward, but my right hon. Friend certainly wants to be helpful.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) expressed some clear views about what was the right way in which to proceed. He was very critical of the Turner proposals. He mentioned a worry to which a number of people have drawn attention, about the danger of levelling down. That is an important point, although given that many employers currently make significant contributions to defined-benefit and defined-contribution pension schemes, I do not see why, if we made 3 per cent. the minimum, employers would necessarily think it appropriate to reduce their contributions.

Frank Field: Many employers are jumping ship. In those circumstances, what might more employers do if they are given this soft option?

Stephen Timms: That will certainly be an important element of the debate that we shall all have over the next few weeks.
	The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) described the challenges as he sees them. He is in a slightly difficult position. Shortly before the publication of the Turner report, he committed his party to the citizens pension. When the report was published, he read on page 8 that the citizens pension had been rejected. He tried to welcome the report and say that he agreed with Lord Turner, while still presumably supporting the policy that he announced two weeks before the report's publication. I understand why his speech did not contain a great deal of detail, but look forward to further discussions with him over the next few weeks.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), who chairs the Work and Pensions Committee, rightly spoke of the need for a broad consensus, not simply across the House but across society. It will be important to secure consensus across the House as far as possible, as a basis on which to build the necessary confidence that the arrangement will endure. I agree with him that a settlement that lasted for only a few years would not be a successful outcome.
	I know that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford follows closely what happens in the United States, where there has been a dramatic reduction in coverage of defined-benefit schemes, just as there has been in the United Kingdom. I believe that there has been an even faster reduction in Australia. I know that he heard the speech made by his hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers), who rightly cited dramatic and continuing increases in life expectancy and stock exchange volatility as the principal drivers of change.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) was right to refer to the improvements in tackling pensioner poverty. He spoke for many in expressing concern about Turner and Newall. If Turner and Newall does become insolvent at some point in the next year or so, it will enter an assessment period for the purposes of the Pension Protection Fund. I know that that will reassure many people who are in the position that my hon. Friend described.
	The hon. Member for Gosport spoke with authority on a number of matters. He suggested that the impact of the tax change in 1997 was 3 billion rather than 5 billion, and that is probably a more accurate figure. Like the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, he argued for compulsion, in contrast with the view that his party has advanced. I do not share his pessimism about the Pension Protection Fund. It is important that we keep an eye on the level of the levy that the fund will impose, but the levy will be capped at 0.5 per cent. of scheme assets. That step has reassured many funds.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made some important and valuable points about the way in which the pension system has dealt with women. She is right that home responsibilities protection is a cumbersome and odd construct. Her point that a week's work entails losing a year's HRP is not correct, but the way HRP works has all sorts of strange effects. I am certain that, not least because of her efforts and those of our hon. Friends, the question of how women fare under the reform proposals will be one of the main yardsticks in the public debate that will follow publication of the proposals in the White Paper in the spring.
	The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) spoke from the basis of a good deal of knowledge of investment management. I do not entirely agree with what he said about the savings ratio. At the moment in the UK, it is about the same as it was in the 1960s and it is twice as much as it is in the US. The question of what the savings ratio should be is quite a difficult one. I agree that we want more people to save for a pension, but do not believe that having an element of means-testing makes that impossible. Indeed, we have had means-testing of pensioner incomes in the UK since 1908, and it has not been incompatible with adequate pension saving in the past.
	We have had a good discussion. The national debate will culminate with the large-scale national pensions day that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced, which we plan for March, when there will be the opportunity for a large number of people to engage with Government to discuss the commission's recommendations and to consider the choices that we have to make. I am very optimistic about what we can achieve over the next few months, but no Government can solve the pensions challenge on their own. Broad agreement will be key to securing the confidence that we need. I am grateful for the evidence in the debate that, across the House, hon. Members are willing to contribute to that goal.

Tony Cunningham: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Monday 6th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motions in the name of Mr Secretary Clarke relating to reports on Police Grant not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion, and shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motions in the name of Mr Secretary Prescott relating to reports on Local Government Finance and on Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion, or six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion relating to reports on Police Grant, whichever is the later; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.[Tony Cunningham.]

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
	That Angela Browning be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Hon. Nicholas Soames be added.[Tony Cunningham.]

BULLYING IN SCHOOLS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Tony Cunningham.]

Adrian Bailey: I have secured the debate to allow the House to consider mobile phone technology and how best we can deal with the problems, particularly bullying, presented by that developing industry. In addition, I want to go further and to present a solution that can enhance education as well as minimising bullying. Mobile phone technology in our schools is both a challenge and an opportunity.
	There are an estimated 61 million mobile phone connections in the United Kingdom. It is estimated that 95 per cent. of young people between the ages of 11 and 21 have access to a mobile phone. Furthermore, it is estimated that there are 2.5 million mobile phone users aged between 10 and 16. The market is worth something like 500 million per annum to the airtime providers.
	Young people are fascinated by the technology, and mobile phones constitute one of their most treasured possessions, but there is a dark side to the fascination. For children who wish to bully others, the technology provides a new dimension to their capacity for intimidation. Along with text bullying, the bizarre and inappropriately named practice of happy slapping has provided new technological refinements for the age-old playground bully.
	The time is now right for the House to consider how to deal with the problem. In his recent report on school behaviour and discipline, Sir Alan Steer said that
	mobile phones are now part of daily life and have changed the way in which individuals and organisations communicate. We are deeply concerned at some of the negative impacts which mobile phones including camera phones are having on school discipline and pupil safety. This is not simply a case of ring tones disrupting lessons. Mobile phones are sometimes used to convey inappropriate text messages as a form of bullying and harassment. Some pupils have used mobile phones to invite aggressive parents to schools so the parent can challenge teachers' rights to punish misbehaviour. Pupils with mobile phones may also find themselves bullied or have their phones stolen with a particular risk within some communities of mugging on the way to school. We believe pupils should be discouraged from bringing mobile phones to school. It is obviously unacceptable for pupils to have phones switched on in a lesson. We support head teachers who, having considered the community in which their school is situated and consulted parents, decide to ban mobile phones.
	The report clearly states that schools cannot ignore the choices presented by this new and developing technology. We must strive to prevent the abuse of the technology and look at how pupils can engage with it.
	Many schools just ban mobile phones, but I know of none that have been able to enforce that. Anecdotally, I believe that some schools in the US use cell blockers to stop the signal within the confines of the school. That is an effective but somewhat draconian solution that is not popular with either parents or teachers.
	The practice of happy slapping, described by The Guardian as a
	youth craze in which groups of teenagers armed with camera phones slap or mug passers by,
	is just the most extreme form of mobile phone bullying. The children's charity NCH reported last year that 14 per cent. of youngsters had experienced text bullying, and that 50 per cent. of that text bullying occurred in the school environment. In addition, the story of Kyle Parker in Bolton is well documented. That 13-year-old schoolboy was tied to a tree with masking tape in his lunch break, and then set on fire. Mobile phone technology is allowing bullies to advance the forms and styles of bullying tactics that they choose to use.
	Recently, a teacher in Runcorn was assaulted by a pupil, and the assault was photographed and distributed by mobile phone. In the west midlands, a boy was injured in a bicycle accident. Young people gathered around and took photographs. They even impeded the emergency services attempting to help the boy as they took more photographs on their mobile phones. Pupils from both primary and secondary schools have told me that bullying like that, and text bullying, are frequently encountered in school life.
	Other problems that have been brought to my attention include disruption to classes, cheating in exams, assault and theft. Surf controls have been devised to deal with the challenges presented by the internet and are used in schools but we have yet to develop a firm strategy to deal with a more influential technology. Mobile phones are largely perceived as just a nuisance in schools.
	The report on school behaviour and discipline chaired by Sir Alan Steer acknowledges that modern technology can give parents and schools control of pupils' mobiles. It states:
	We note advances in other technologies means it is possible to give parents and schools control of pupils' mobiles. This means it is possible to disable certain phone functions, whilst allowing some numbers to remain active for emergencies. We understand the technology has the ability to operate on a geographical basis, such as within school boundaries. We will be interested to see whether schools make use of this technology in future. However we do not see this as a substitute for schools having a clear policy on the possession and use of mobile phones on the school site, and there being appropriate measures to punish those pupils who do not obey the school rules.
	The report continues by outlining a recommendation that
	schools should be required to have a clear policy on the possession and use of mobile phones on the school site, including details of the sanctions, if pupils disobey the policy.
	That may be desirable, but it underlines the approach that mobile phones are seen in a negative light.
	So far I have outlined the negative aspects of the technology as used in schools. It is easy to let the publicity surrounding some of those horrific acts obscure the very real benefits that could accrue from mobile phone use in schools. There are numerous benefits that could be achieved from mobile phone technology if utilised effectively. Representatives from the industry have informed me that there is a model to deal with some of the problems.
	Technologically, it is feasible to have a registration system where the pupil and school are identified and a profile is downloaded to phones that effectively blocks calls from unwanted sources, and restricts the use of cameras and the times when the phone can be used. All of the controls provided by those combined profiles can be imposed by a central provider-based application on the subscriber's telephone. That enables changes to be made to any profile to take immediate effect. It also enables phones to be used for positive educational purposes.
	Mobile phones could help to raise standards in schools. For example, on a geography field trip, students could make use of mobile phones to take pictures of a feature or of a plant which could be added to their work. Furthermore, as technology develops, we will see further advances in internet use for our handsets which would allow us to develop and maintain other educational benefits. We could look into ways of forming interactive lessons, enabling students to access lesson plans and extra studies. We could develop software to offer interactive school quizzes. It would even be possible to build into the profile rewards of free texts for those responding in a certain way or finding certain things out through use of their mobile phones.
	We have not begun to realise the potential offered by the technology in schools. The industry has tried to work with schools on a very limited basis to protect children, but the incidence of happy slapping demonstrates that that has so far not been successful.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on his excellent speech, to which I have listened intently. Does he agree that it would be in the industry's interest to address the problem urgently? It need not cost the Government anything and the cost to the industry would be minimal, but the gainsin improving the acceptability of mobile phone use in and around schoolswould be immense.

Adrian Bailey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he makes the very point that I am about to develop.
	I suspect that the airtime providers are more concerned about potential attempts to restrict the use of phones than they are about trying to come up with a solution to the problem, even though that could expand the use of phones in schools.
	I fear that at some point there will be an event that will generate public demand for regulation. Already at least one speech has been made in the EU pressing for a directive on the issue. Regulation need not take place if the industry and the Government get together to experiment with a pilot project. It may be possible to develop a model that could be used by schools to achieve the twin objectives of curbing bullying and enhancing education.
	Figures demonstrate that a pilot scheme for a year in a controlled area, with six secondary schools and their feeder primary schools, would cost about 1.5 million. I realise that that would be too much money for a local education authority, and I am sure that the Government have not factored it into their education budget, but for the industry as a whole it would be peanuts, and much less than future regulation might cost.
	The industry should not perceive such a scheme as a possible risk to its income. If a model could be developed for use in schools, with interactive lessons and a range of activities involving the use of mobile phones, it is likely that overall income would increase. Such a model pioneered and developed in this country could be exportable and commercially successful. The airtime providers need to think outside their current commercial box and work with the Government to develop such a scheme. Will the Government talk to the providers and others in the field of child protection about developing a model that could be piloted as a matter of urgency?
	The industry will not move unless it has to. It is up to us, as a Government, to see that it does.

Jacqui Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) on securing the debate and thank him for raising an issue of such importance to children and young people and for the management of our schools. Even before this debate, he showed a keen interest in the issue. He has tabled parliamentary questions and last summer held a meeting with me.
	We should be in no doubt that bullying has no place at all in our schools. It is an extremely hurtful and frightening experience for children and young people, making them feel trapped and scared to speak out. The lasting negative impact on their self-esteem, education and development must not be underestimated, as we know to tragic effect; on occasions, it has even been a factor in young people taking their own lives.
	Bullying can take many forms, from ridicule to physical attacks, threats and social exclusion, but consistently at its core is the abuse of power to frighten and intimidate. Bullying limits a child's potential and prevents us from delivering our objective that every child matters. We need to ensure that our broader education systems deliver the outcomes of staying safe, enjoying and achieving.
	Bullying should never be tolerated in our schools, no matter what its motivation, no matter how it occurs. Children have to know what is right and wrong, and must understand that there are consequences for crossing the line. That is why we have been clear, especially since 1997, in our approach to bullying. We have made it compulsory for schools to have policies to prevent and tackle bullying. Schools should be prepared to punish bullying, and need to have in place a range of sanctions to tackle all forms of poor behaviour, alongside strategies to help children understand the harm they have caused and to change their behaviour.
	We have given an unprecedented profile to anti-bullying work in schools. We have stepped up our campaign to get every school in the country to consider how they respond to bullying and to sign up to our anti-bullying charter for action, thus reinforcing our expectation in the White Paper that every school in England will adopt it. We reissued the charter to all schools during last year's anti-bullying week, and if schools do not sign up, Ministersand I suspect, even more importantly, parents and pupilswill want to know why those schools are not taking the necessary action to demonstrate their opposition to bullying and to tackle it.

Peter Bone: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) on raising what is a very important issue. I am becoming increasingly concerned about bullying in Wellingborough, but does the Minister agree that the schools are doing very wellI congratulate the Government on what they are doingbut that a lot of bullying goes on outside the school gates?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. Of course, it is important that action is taken to tackle the bullying that takes place in schools and, as I shall say later, to develop the sort of skills and attitudes in young people that are likely to tackle the bullying that takes place not only in schools, but beyond the school gates. Sometimes, it is necessary for schools to take extremely tough action against those who perpetrate bullying. That is why we have given schools the power, for example, to apply for court-imposed parenting orders to compel the parents of children who bully seriously to attend parenting classes or face fines of up to 1,000. Head teachers have the power permanently to exclude violent and persistently disruptive pupils, including those who bully, and we have made it clear that we would not normally expect an exclusions appeal panel to reinstate them in those circumstances.
	We have developed a range of ways in which we can support anti-bullying activity in schools, including dedicated support under our national strategies, which have dedicated consultants in behaviour and attendance, and there is the work of the Anti-Bullying Alliance, which we support. We have put more adults than ever into our schools to help children inside and outside the classroom. They include teachers, classroom assistants, learning mentors, Connexions personal advisers, behaviour and education support teams, even police officers, all of whom are available to help tackle bullying.
	We have provided more than 600,000 in funding to the Anti-Bullying Alliance to enable that organisation of more than 65 leading anti-bullying charities and experts to provide schools and local authorities with expert help to tackle bullying. But of course, other children are often in the best position to tackle bullying, by supporting and standing by their friends. Last year, more than 1 million children signed up to our beat bullying campaign and wore a blue wristband to make a visible commitment to show that they are not prepared to tolerate bullying and that they will stand by their friends.
	We have provided funding of 600,000 over the past three years to the ChildLine in partnership with schools programme, which works directly with schools to encourage and train young people to establish their own projects to help each other in schoolsfor example, with anti-bullying and peer-support schemes. In 200405, those involved visited 636 schools, working with more than 45,000 children and young people. However, I know from our meeting and the points that my hon. Friend has made tonight that one of his key concerns is the misuse of mobile phones for bullying.
	Of course, mobile phones can be put to positive use, but I shall focus to begin with on the misuse of mobile phones for bullying, which can be particularly unpleasant for those children and young people involved. There is often no let up in the abuse. Nowhere is safe if people are contactable at all hours by mobile phone. As my hon. Friend said, a very large majority of secondary school pupils now own a mobile phone. It is thus possible that the trend will develop and affect more of our children and young people. As my hon. Friend identified, an NCH survey in April 2005 found that 14 per cent. of 11 to 19-year-olds had experienced bullying by text message. I especially share his concern about the recent trend in happy slapping, which is when camera phones are used to record and transmit images of bullying, assault and other violence. Such activities often happen outside school, but nevertheless the images are shared and used to cause disruption in school.
	The issues regarding the use of mobile phones in schools can be an especially difficult challenge for schools and their leaders to address. That was why after my hon. Friend raised the matter with me, I specifically asked the practitioners group on behaviour to examine it. The group, which was chaired by Sir Alan Steer of Seven Kings high school in Ilford, was composed of heads and teachers with a particular interest and experience in managing pupil behaviour. As my hon. Friend said, the group recognised that mobile phones are now a part of daily life. However, it also noted specific worries about the negative impact that mobile phones can have on school discipline and behaviour.
	As my hon. Friend said, some schools have already banned mobile phones from their premises and that has been effective for a number of them. Other schools are reluctant to go down that route and, indeed, leaders argue that it would not be appropriate for some schools. Many schools have adopted the compromise of insisting that children keep their phones switched off and in their bags during lessons.
	As my hon. Friend said, the practitioners group sensibly concluded that all schools need to consider the matter carefully and should be required to have a clear policy on the possession and use of mobile phones on the school site. I plan to discuss that recommendation with key partner organisations at the next meeting of the ministerial stakeholders group on behaviour and attendance, which I chair and which includes representatives from the main teachers' professional associations, Ofsted, local authorities and parent-governor groups.
	My hon. Friend was also right to draw attention to the contribution that mobile phone companies can make to tackling the problem. I am pleased to report that the major mobile phone networks have been proactive in addressing some of the wider child protection issues around new mobile phone technology. They have become an active part of the Home Secretary's taskforce on child protection on the internet and recently developed a code of practice for the self-regulation of new forms of content to alleviate some of the concerns and dangers presented by developments in mobile phone technology. They have also been willing to take forward specific projects. For example, over the past year, Vodafone has been working with the National Family and Parenting Institute to provide information for parents on mobile phones and how to support their children if they are being bullied in such a way. I have no doubt that the industry will have listened carefully, as I did, to what my hon. Friend said about the possibility of looking for positive ways forward both to tackle the misuse of mobile phones and to consider where and how they might have a positive contribution to make in our schools.
	There are several specific ideas for restricting the use of mobile phones in schools, although as I think that my hon. Friend realises, none of them offers a clear-cut answer. He referred to the device of cell blocking, which restricts the use of mobile phones in a specific area. While the technology prevents the circulation of photos that are taken by mobile phones in the school, it does not prevent photos of such incidents from being taken in the first place, especially if the incidents happen outside schools. Additionally, it does not prevent images from being circulated outside schools. When we examine the contribution that cell blocking can make, we must consider the use of phones by staff. In some schools, mobile phones are used to allow staff to communicate with one anotherfor example, to respond to discipline problems. Staff access to their own phones would therefore be affected if we blocked the use of mobile phones in schools. It is possible that blocking technologies could interfere with other wireless communication systems in schools.
	I strongly believe that while mobile phone companies and school leaders should consider the positive and the negative aspects of the use of mobile phones in schools, the underlying problem of bullying and mobile phones does not stem from the rapidly changing technology. It provides the wherewithal for bullying, but we must address the underlying causes and take firm action if we are to provide a solution to bullying, whether perpetrated by mobile phone or in any other way. Children and young people who bully lack empathy with others and do not understand the impact of their actions. The social and emotional aspects of learningSEALcurriculum, which is available to all primary schools, is designed to enable children to develop those skills. A similar approach is now being piloted in secondary schools. As well as its general application to reducing bullying, the SEAL resource has a Say no to bullying theme, with ideas for explicit work to reduce bullying. Ofsted has already acknowledged the power of those resources to nip bad behaviour such as bullying in the bud.
	Pupils need not only to understand the impact of their behaviour but the way in which harm can be multiplied if abuse and bullying is recorded and circulated. They need to know that using telecommunications equipment for a crime, whether to circulate pictures of an assault or an abusive text message, is a crime itself for which they could be charged. That approach was successfully adopted by a secondary school in south London that briefed all its pupils about the issue, and it has reduced the problem significantly.
	In conclusion, I commend my hon. Friend on raising this important issue in the House and on recognising both the abuse of mobile phone technology and its benefits. School leaders are beginning to take the issue seriously and, through the ministerial steering group, I will look at what more we can do to support their consideration of the problem. The Government, teachers, governors and fellow pupils need to recognise that while even one child continues to suffer the pain and indignity of being bullied work remains work to be done, which is why we will continue to put in place hard-hitting measures which tackle bullying in our schools, however it is perpetrated.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Midnight.